degrading treatment or punishment.” 189 Thus, the Court has held that, in light of the general obligation of the States Parties to respect and guarantee the rights of every person subject to their jurisdiction, enshrined in Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the State must open, ex officio and immediately, an effective investigation that makes it possible to identify, prosecute and punish those responsible, when a complaint is filed or when there is a well-founded reason to believe that an act of torture has been committed. In these situations, the decision to open and conduct an investigation is not a discretionary power of the State, but constitutes a peremptory State obligation derived from international law and cannot be ignored or conditioned by domestic legal provisions or decisions of any kind. 190 This obligation remains “whosoever the agent who may eventually be attributed with the violation, even private individuals because, if their acts are not investigated in earnest, they would to a certain extent be abetted by the public authorities, and this would engage the international responsibility of the State.” 191 112. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture, States Parties shall guarantee that any person making an accusation of having been subjected to torture within their jurisdiction shall have the right to an impartial examination of their case. 113. Finally, it should be noted that said procedures should take into consideration the international rules for documenting and interpreting forensic evidence elements regarding the commission of acts of torture and, particularly, those defined in the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol). 192 B.2 General considerations regarding “within a reasonable time” 114. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice in cases of human rights violations must ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to know the truth of what happened and to have the relevant authorities investigate, prosecute and, if appropriate, punish those found to be responsible. 193 No less important is the Court’s view that a prolonged delay in the proceedings may, in itself, constitute a violation of judicial guarantees. 194 115. The Court has established that the concept of reasonable time should be analyzed in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process, which could also include the execution of the final judgment. Thus, it has considered four elements to determine whether the guarantee of reasonable time was met, namely: a) the 189 The Court recalls that Paraguay deposited the instrument of ratification of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture on September 9, 1990. Therefore, the obligations assumed under the Convention make the State liable for the events that occurred in the present case. 190 Cf. Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C No. 160, para. 75, and Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 350. 191 Cf. Case of Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras. Merits, supra, para. 177, and Case of Angulo Losada v. Bolivia, supra, para. 93. 192 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez Soler v. Colombia. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 100, and Case of Vargas-Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 93. 193 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 125. 194 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 125. 34