person to appear before a court when one of his rights has been violated, to obtain an investigation conducted by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal that will determine whether there has been such a violation, and the corresponding right to reparation for the damage suffered. 320 193. Also, Article 8.1 of the Convention sets forth that: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 194. In this regard, the Commission reiterates that the formal existence of domestic remedies is not enough to consider that the State has complied with the obligation to guarantee the full exercise of rights under the Convention, and that they must be effective. 321 In addition, the Commission notes, as the Court has done, that such resources should ensure a decision within a reasonable time period. 322 Likewise, the State must explain and prove the reasons for the delay in issuing final judgment in a particular case. 323 195. The Inter-American Court has stated on several occasions that: [t]he right to justice shall also ensure, within a reasonable time, the right of the victim or his or her next of kin to learn the truth about what happened and for those responsible to be punished.324 The lack of reasonableness in the duration of judicial proceedings constitutes in principle, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.325 In this regard, the Court has taken into account four elements to determine whether the time is reasonable: a) the complexity of the matter; b) the procedural activity of the interested party; c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; 326 and d) the adverse effect on the judicial situation of the person involved in the proceedings.327 196. In the case under review, the Commission notes that the delay in the proceedings and final judgment cannot be justified due to the complexity of the case. Indeed, the purpose of the action was to declare the responsibility of the Federal Union for the arbitrary detention of Vladimir Herzog, the torture he was subjected to and his death. The investigation of said Declaratory action was essentially based on testimonial and documentary evidence. All of the witnesses and experts, and documentary evidence, were presented and processed during the proceedings before the first instance federal magistrate, who settled on October 27, 1978 in favor of the petitioners, declaring the State responsible for the death of journalist Vladimir Herzog. It has not been shown that the appeals filed later on were so complex as to justify such a delay in the response in the instant case. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 320 IACHR, Report No. 40/04, Case Nº 12.053, Maya Indigenous Communities of the Toledo District (Belize), IACHR Annual Report 2004, para. 174; IACHR, Report No. 54/01, CasE 12.051, Maria Da Penha Fernandes (Brazil), April 16, 2001, para. 37. 321 See I/A Court H.R. Case of Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers, Judgment of July 8, 2004. Serie C No. 110, para. 229; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003. Serie C No. 101, para. 273; Case of Cantoral Benavides, Judgment of December 3, 2001. Serie C No. 88, para. 69, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez, Judgment of June 7, 2003. Serie C No. 99, para. 121. 322 I/A Court H.R. Case of 19 Merchants, Judgment of July 5, 2004. Serie C No. 109, para. 188; Case of Myrna Mack Chang, Judgment of November 25, 2003. Serie C No. 101, para. 209; Case of Bulacio, Judgment of September 18, 2003. Serie C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., Judgment of June 21, 2002. Serie C No. 94, paras. 142 to 145. 323 I/A Court H.R., Case of 19 Merchants, Judgment of July 5, 2004. Serie C No. 109, para. 191. 324 Cfr. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Serie C No. 100, para. 114; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 18, para. 133, and Case of Las Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 186, para. 105. 325 Cfr. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Serie C No. 94, para. 145; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Serie C No. 192, para. 154, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 18, para. 133. 326 Cfr. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Serie C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 244, and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010 Serie C No. 214, para. 133. 327 Cfr. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 326, para. 155; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 244, and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra note 327, para. 133. 44