102. The Court observes, therefore, that in the context of the same criminal proceedings that were effective to sentence and convict certain persons, the possible participation of others was investigated, and that the stay of proceedings in their favor resulted from an assessment of the probative material that was described in the pertinent decisions. This Court is unable to “settle the disagreements between the parties concerning specific implications of the evidence or the application of domestic law on aspects that are not directly related to compliance with international human rights obligations.” 120 2.6. Obligation to conduct the investigation within a reasonable time 103. Regarding the arguments about the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings, the Court notes, first, that the State was able to determine what happened to Mr. Palma Mendoza around two years and nine months after his abduction. Despite this, after Lenin Ordoñez was detained on February 16, 2000, and made his voluntary statement, one year, one month and three days elapsed before, on March 19, 2001, Lenin Ordóñez, Freddy Contreras and Vicente Domínguez were sentenced and convicted, a decision that was made final on June 26, 2002, after the appeal for annulment filed by the convicted men had been declared inadmissible. Regarding the time that elapsed after this last decision until the final confirmation of the stay of proceedings ordered (supra para. 62), this did not result in a delay that prejudiced Mr. Palma’s next of kin. This was because the facts had already been determined, together with the responsibilities arising from them and, up until the stay of proceedings were confirmed as final, the State kept open the possibility of conducting further inquiries, if the circumstances arose that the law established for this. 3. Conclusion 104. The Court concludes that, for the said reasons, in this case it has not been proved that the State’s conduct gave rise to the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and protection of the next of kin of Mr. Palma Mendoza. Consequently, the Court determines that the State did not violate the said rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to its Article 4, all in relation to Article 1(1) of this treaty. VIII RIGHT TO PERSONAL INTEGRITY OF THE NEXT OF KIN OF MR. PALMA MENDOZA IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS (ARTICLES 5 AND 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION) Observations of the Inter-American Commission and arguments of the parties 105. The Commission argued that in accordance with the proven facts, for nearly three years, Mr. Palma Mendoza’s next of kin kept hoping that he would be found alive, a situation that changed with the exhumation and identification of his body. It considered that, if the State had not incurred in lack of due diligence in the investigations to elucidate the events that led to Mr. Palma’s abduction and subsequent death, it would not have subjected the members of his family to additional suffering and anguish, which has taken a toll on their social relationships. 120 Cf. Case of Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections and merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, para. 80, and Case of González Medina and family members v. Dominican Republic, para. 38. 32