criminal act came to light; 265 d) the characteristics of the remedies available under domestic law; 266 and e) the context in which the facts occurred. 267 The second element requires the Court to determine whether the interested parties made the interventions that were reasonably required of them at the different procedural stages. 268 As for the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court has understood that, as the ones in charge of the proceedings, they have the duty to direct and guide the judicial process so as not to sacrifice justice and due legal process in favor of formalism. 269 In relation to the fourth element, that is, the effects on the legal situation of the persons involved in the proceeding, the Court has established that the authorities must act with the utmost diligence in those cases where the protection of other rights of the parties involved in the process depends on the duration of the proceedings. 270 267. The Court notes that in the instant case, the domestic authorities conducted investigations and judicial proceedings in criminal case 88/2002 related to the murder of Mayor María de los Ángeles Tamés Pérez, in which Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz appear as the alleged perpetrators. The Court confirms that the alleged victims in the case were linked to the proceedings as soon as they were arrested, on February 25, 2002, in the case of Daniel García Rodríguez and on October 25, 2002, in the case of Reyes Alpízar Ortiz. Both recovered their “ambulatory” release on August 23, 2019, the date on which non-custodial precautionary measures were ordered for them (supra para. 87). However, the criminal proceedings continued until May 12, 2022, when the first instance conviction was handed down, which was subsequently appealed (supra para. 79). The Court concludes that more than 20 years have passed -17 of which the alleged victims have spent in custody, deprived of their liberty - since the beginning of the proceedings against Daniel García Rodríguez and Reyes Alpízar Ortiz, without a final judicial decision being reached. 268. In the Court’s opinion, this criminal case did not present any major complexities since it involved the murder of one person, with two defendants, without a large number of investigative hypotheses to be exhausted, and with much of the testimonial and expert evidence gathered during the first months of the investigation. 269. With respect to the second element of the analysis of reasonable time, the Court notes that the alleged victims did indeed avail themselves of a significant number of remedies in the course of their defense. All these procedural acts consisted of interventions that were reasonably required of them at the various procedural stages. On this point, the Court recalls that the use of legal para. 152; Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 473; Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 103, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166. 265 Mutatis mutandis, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166. 266 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166. 267 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, para. 156; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166, and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 473. 268 Cf. Case of Fornerón and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 69; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166; Case of Díaz Loreto et al. v. Venezuela. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 19, 2019. Series C No. 392, para. 117; and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 474. Cf. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211; Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166, and Case of Members and Militants of the Patriotic Union v. Colombia, supra, para. 475. 269 270 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155; Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, supra, para. 202, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 166. -69-