that, contrary to the declarations by the State, the Court verifies that no dilatory or obstructive conduct is observed on the part of the alleged victim, her family members or legal representatives, as even if Brisa’s legal representatives had withheld the arrest warrant for E.G.A. – which is not proven – this could not justify the inertia of the judicial authorities in arresting the accused. 130. Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court has understood that, as leaders of the process, they have the duty to direct and prosecute the criminal investigation with the aim of identifying, prosecuting and, where appropriate, punishing all those responsible for the events.252 In this case, the state authorities were not diligent in the investigation of the acts of sexual violence against Brisa, nor have they taken into account the effects of time during each stage of the criminal process. Almost 20 years have passed since the sexual violence suffered by Brisa and, to date, there is no final sentence of conviction or acquittal, since the request for extradition from Colombia to Bolivia to appear in the third trial has been denied (supra para. 75). The Court confirms that this excessive delay in the processing of the criminal proceedings is the result of prolonged periods of inaction, without any explanation or justification provided from the facts by the authorities in charge of the prosecution. Furthermore, it is noted that the errors and shortcomings of the Public Prosecutor's Office and the judicial authorities were the cause of significant delays in the processing of some appeals, the repetition of evidence, the revocation of two final sentences and the resubmission of the case for new prosecution on two occasions, and, due to the failure to establish the necessary safeguards, facilitated the accused’s escape to his country of origin. 131. The Court verifies, for example, that more than a year elapsed between the decision of the Superior Court of Justice of Cochabamba that annulled the acquittal ruling of September 2005, ordering the remand of the case for a new trial by another Trial Court (supra para. 67), until the third trial was ordered (supra para. 68); almost six years between the declaration of E.G.A.'s contempt of court (supra para. 70) and the arrangement of the red alert before Interpol (supra para. 71); almost ten years between the declaration of E.G.A.'s contempt of court and the request by the Public Prosecutor’s Office to the National Director of Interpol that the international notification of search, location and arrest for the purposes of extradition of the accused for contempt of court be submitted to the system (supra para. 71), and two more years to issue the petition with a formal request for extradition to the competent authority in Colombia (supra para. 73). The Court warns that the periods of little or no activity by the Bolivian judicial authorities added together are equivalent to 15 years, which, in addition to being inadmissible per se, ultimately contributed to the current state of absolute impunity in the present case. 132. Finally, with regard to the impact generated on the legal situation of the people involved in the proceedings, this Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual, it is necessary for the proceedings to advance with greater diligence to resolve the case in a short period of time.253 When dealing with a girl in a case of sexual violence, the Court considers that an enhanced criterion of speed is required.254 In this case, the Court observes that the excessive delay in the processing of the criminal process prolonged and intensified the serious impact on Brisa's mental health caused by the sexual violence to which she was subjected. It is logical to infer that, if the judicial authorities had taken into account that she was a girl, it would have been evident that the case required greater diligence by the judicial authorities, since its primary objective, which was to investigate and punish the sexual violence suffered by Brisa and obtain the psychological support necessary to process the traumatic events she experienced, depended on the brevity of the judicial process. Therefore, the Court considers that it is sufficiently proven that the prolongation of the process in this case affected the progress of her daily life. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C Series C No. 101, para. 211, and Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 281. 252 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 111. 253 254 Cf. Case of V.R.P., V.P.C. et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 283. 44