140. In this sense, the reasonable time should be valued in relation to the duration of the entire criminal process.200 As established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, and in light of the concrete circumstances of the case, the Commission shall consider four elements that the Court has in its recent case law: i) the complexity of the matter; ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.201 141. With respect to complexity, the Commission observes that the States did not justify the delays in the criminal process. With respect to the activity of the interested party, the Commission observes that Mrs. V.P.C. actively contributed to the process, monitoring and driving the investigation, and complaining on repeated occasions about the delays in the proceedings and the long periods of procedural inactivity. 142. With respect to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission has identified various procedural omissions, as indicated earlier in this report. Furthermore, the IACHR observes that nearly six years passed between the decision to absolve in April 2002, and the end of the process. The IACHR emphasizes that, during that timeframe and based on the evidence submitted, no measures were taken to clarify the facts that could justify the delay in the process’ completion. 143. With respect to the fourth element, the Court has established that in order to establish reasonableness, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account. 202 The European Court has maintained that in cases of violence against a girl, the investigation must be carried out as soon as possible. 203 144. The Commission considers that in this case, due to V.R.P’s situation as a girl and a victim of rape, the State had a reinforced obligation to respect and guarantee her rights, which was not reflected in the manner in which the investigation and criminal process were carried out. 145. Finally, the Commission emphasizes that the State itself recognized the delay in the process without providing any justification. To the contrary, the State limited itself to indicating that the delay was a consequence of the Criminal Code of Procedure that was in place at the time, which was “excessively formal, rigorous and non-public.” Furthermore, the State recognized that “the administration of justice was much slower, such that the Court’s delay in issuing its decision is, in principle, attributable to the system itself.” 146. By virtue of the aforementioned, the Commission considers that the criminal process’ duration of seven years was not justified by the State pursuant to the relevant elements, and that, therefore, it was unreasonable and constitutes a violation of the guarantee to a hearing within a reasonable time established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of V.R.P. and V.P.C. 2. Right to personal integrity for V.R.P. and V.P.C. (Article 5 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument) 200 Inter-American Court. Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 129; Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 104; and Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2014. Series C No. 114, par. 168. Also see: IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Case 11.506, Merits, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos, Paragua, December 27, 2002, par. 76. 201 Inter-American Court. Case of the Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par. 164. 202 Inter-American Court. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, par. 138; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits. Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 155; and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009. Series C No. 196, par. 115. 203 ECHR, M. and M. v. Croatia. Judgment of September 3, 2015, par. 148.