71 243. On its part, the State acknowledged that there has been a delay in the investigations starting with the filing of the first criminal accusation, that is, as of March 27, 1992, since it has not been able to determine the whereabouts of Mr. Rosendo Radilla-Pacheco. However, it indicated that “[t]he case sub judice is complex from its origin […],” based mainly on the time that has gone by since the facts occurred, reason for which it requested that the Tribunal take this into consideration “[w]hen determining the reasonability of the term for its resolution.” 244. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes as one of the elements of the due process that the courts decide the cases submitted before them within a reasonable time period. In this regard, the Court has considered it necessary to take into consideration several elements in order to determine the reasonability of the term in which a process is developed: a) complexity of the matter, b) procedural activity of the interested party, c) behavior of the judicial authorities,245 and d) infringement generated to the juridical situation of the person involved in the proceedings.246 However, the appropriateness of applying those criteria to determine the reasonability of the term of a process depends of the specific circumstances,247 since in cases such as the present the State’s duty to fully satisfy the requirements of justice prevails over the guarantee of a reasonable term.248 In any case, it corresponds to the State to prove the reasons why a process or set of processes have taken a specific period of time that exceeds the limits of the reasonable term. If it does not prove it, the Court has ample powers to make its own estimates in this sense.249 245. In the present case, the Court warns that the inquiry of the facts has certain complexity, since it is a forced disappearance in execution for more than 35 years. However, when the two first accusations were filed, the authorities did not carry out an exhaustive investigation (supra para. 201). Even though the Special Prosecutors’ Office started, among others, the investigation of the facts, the Court points out that, for this, a period of almost 10 years went by since the first complaint was filed in 1992. It is not possible to separate this from the State’s omission itself. Likewise, during the subsequent investigations Mrs. Tita Radilla Martínez has assumed an active position as “collaborator”, bringing before the authorities the information she has obtained and driving the investigations. However, the preliminary inquiry is still open more than seven years after the Special Prosecutors’ Office started the investigations. In all, more than 17 years have gone by since the cabinet authority was made formally aware of the forced disappearance of Mr. Rosendo RadillaPacheco, without the State having validly justified the reason for this delay. All the aforementioned, seen jointly, has excessively surpassed the term that can be considered reasonable for these effects. Therefore, the Court considers that the State failed to comply with the requirements of Article 8(1) of the Convention. 245 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 156, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 135. 246 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 40, para. 155; Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 156, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 32, para. 135. 247 Cf. Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia, supra note 133, para. 171; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 167, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 156. 248 Cf. Case of La Cantuta v. Peru, supra note 51, para. 149, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 156. 249 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru, supra note 44, para. 156.