proceeding may be, in and of itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.418 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: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) procedural activity by the interested parties; (iii) the conduct of judicial authorities, and (iv) the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim.419 The Court recalls that it is up to the State to demonstrate, based on these criteria, the reasons for the amount of time it has taken to resolve the cases; otherwise, the Court has broad powers to draw its own conclusions on this matter.420 172. Thus, and in light of these standards, the Court will proceed to analyze the amount of time that elapsed between the delivery of the judgments by the final court of appeal, until the present in the thirteen cases addressed by the instant case, based on the factors of (B.3.1) complexity of the matter, (B.3.2) procedural activity by the interested parties, (B.3.3) the conduct of judicial authorities, and (B.3.4) the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victims. B.3.1. The complexity of the matter 173. The Court holds several factors to be relevant for judging the complexity of the matter. These include the complexity of the evidence, the number of parties to the process or victims, the time elapsed since word was received about the facts to be investigated, the characteristics of the remedy set forth in the domestic legislation, and the context in which the violation occurred.421 In the case at hand, the Court has seen that twenty-two to twenty-seven years elapsed from the time the processes of enforcement of verdicts began until the time this judgment is being delivered, during which the judgments have not yet been fully executed. 174. The next point, number of victims, has varied depending on each different procedure, such that Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993, has one victim only, while Aguilera Machuca v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993, has 336. It should be noted, however, that these are processes for the enforcement of final, non-appealable judgments, in which the only task at hand is to assess the amounts and define the payment mechanisms. It should also be noted that the courts hearing these processes were the same ones that sat as trial courts. This Court therefore holds that the matters brought before the courts at this stage of the case were supplementary, addressed final execution, and are not particularly complex. B.3.2. Procedural activity by the interested parties 418 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 González et al. v. Venezuela. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of September 20, 2021. Series C No. 436, para. 185. 419 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71 and 72, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 7, 2021. Series C No. 435, note 238. 420 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Barbosa de Souza et al. v. Brazil, supra, note 238. 421 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 26, 2021. Series C No. 431, note 302. 60