matter of the dispute. If the passage of time has a relevant impact on the individual's legal situation, it will be necessary for the procedure to advance with more diligence so that the case is resolved in a short time”128. 154. Regarding the argumentative and probative burden on the reasonableness of the term, the Commission has indicated that it is the responsibility of the State to indicate and prove the reason why more time than is reasonable has been required to render a definitive judgment in a particular case129. Along the same lines, the Court has indicated that it is up to the State to justify, based on the criteria indicated, the reason why the processing of the case has taken a long time and, in the event that it does not prove it, the Court has ample powers to make its own estimate in this regard130. The duty to investigate and punish those responsible for terrorist acts - 155. Specifically in the context of the fight against terrorism, according to the Inter-American Convention against Terrorism, the signatory States - among which is the Argentine State - assumed the commitment to "adopt the necessary measures and strengthen cooperation between them" in order to prevent, punish, and eliminate the criminal phenomenon of terrorism131. In the same vein, the Commission in its report on Terrorism and Human Rights highlighted that “the member states of the OAS are obligated to guarantee the security of their populations, which includes the necessary measures to investigate, prosecute, and punish terrorist acts”132. 156. The Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson, has referred to a series of minimum requirements that to investigate terrorist acts, which include:133 - - They must act ex officio and not wait for a formal complaint lodged by the deceased's next of kin The investigation should always begin promptly. A timely investigation is more likely to secure reliable evidence. Once an investigation has been opened, the authorities must ensure that the next-of-kin are kept fully informed of its progress, and are provided with an adequate opportunity to participate. The investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible. The principle of accountability extends to situations in which it is alleged that public officials have caused death or life-threatening injury through the negligent use of lethal force, or have negligently failed to prevent a terrorist act In cases where State responsibility is at issue the investigative authorities must be wholly independent from those potentially implicated, which implies not only a lack of hierarchical or institutional connection but also a practical independence There must be a sufficient element of public scrutiny of the investigation and its results to secure public accountability. The authorities must have taken reasonable steps to secure and evaluate all potentially relevant evidence. Investigators should commission the necessary forensic and post-mortem reports, providing a complete and objective account of the scientific findings; record all potentially relevant evidential sources; conduct site visits; and identify, question and take comprehensive written statements from all relevant witnesses. Any conclusions must be based on a complete, objective and impartial analysis of the evidence, including an examination of the authorities’ own actions. I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, paras. 112 and 115; I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156 129 IACHR. Report No. 3/16. Case 12.916. Merits. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, José Angel Alvarado Herrera and others. Mexico. April 13, 2016. Para. 271 130 I/A Court H.R., Case of Tenorio Roca et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 22, 2016. Series C No. 314, para. 239. 131 Inter-American Convention against Terrorism. Approved by the General Assembly of the Organization of American States in the first plenary session held on June 3, 2002. AG / RES. 1840 (XXXII-0/02) art 1. 132 IACHR, Report on Terrorism and Human Rights. October 22, 2002. Chapter II A Para. 33. Chapter IA, para. 3. 133 United Nations. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms whi le countering terrorism, Ben Emmerson. Framework principles for ensuring the human rights of victims of terrorism*. June 4, 2012. A/HRC/20/14, para. 36. 128 31