50 even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 128. The right to access justice implies that the solution of the controversy be reached in a reasonable time98; a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation to the right to a fair trial.99 129. The reasonability of the time period referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be analyzed with regard to the total duration of the criminal process developed against a certain accused party, up to the issuing of a definitive judgment.100 In criminal matters this period of time starts when the first procedural act against a specific person as the probable responsible of a certain crime is presented. 130. In the present case, the first procedural act was the apprehension of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez on April 27, 1997, date as of which the time period must be analyzed, even when we are here dealing with the time period for the realization of the process, not the duration of the detention, since that was the first proceeding of which there is news within the totality of the acts of the criminal procedure corresponding to Mr. López Álvarez. In order to determine if the term was reasonable it is precise to take into account that the process concludes with the issuing of the definitive judgment; when the exercise of the jurisdiction of acquaintance with the case concludes.101 In criminal matters the term must include the entire procedure, including all the recourses of review that may be presented. 131. On January 13, 2003 the Sectional Court of First Instance of Tela issued an acquittal in favor of Mr. Alfredo López Álvarez, judgment that was confirmed on May 29, 2003 by the Appellate Court of la Ceiba. In June 2003, the Office of the Public Prosecutor announced an appeal of annulment against the judgment of the Appellate Court of la Ceiba, but it abandoned it on July 31, 2003. On August 14, 2003 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice considered “the appeal of annulment dismissed due to violation of the law announced” before the mentioned Appellate Court, and confirmed the judgment issued on May 29, 2003. Mr. López Álvarez was released on August 26, 2003 (supra paras. 54(40), 54(41), 54(42), and 54(45)). 132. To examine the reasonability of the time period in this process pursuant to the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Court takes into account three elements: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the behavior of the judicial authorities.102 98 Cf. Case of Myrna Mack-Chang. Judgment of September 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 209; Case of Bulacio. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114; and Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, paras. 142 through 145. 99 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 166; Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 7, para. 85; Case of the Moiwana Community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 100 Cf. Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 104; Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 168, and Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 87, para. 70. 101 Cf. Case of Tibi, supra note 80, para. 168, and Case of Suárez Rosero, supra note 87, para. 71. 102 Cf. Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 7, para. 166; Case of Acosta-Calderón, supra note 18, para. 105, and Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters, supra note 97, para. 67.