29 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 100. Article 25 of the Convention sets forth that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The State Parties undertake: a) to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; b) to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted. 101. The Court has repeatedly stated that the right to fair trial should guarantee, within reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their relatives to have adopted all measures necessary to know the truth about the facts and to punish those responsible.43 102. As regards to the principle of reasonable time set forth in Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Court finds that three elements should be taken into account to establish the fairness of the time incurred in judicial proceedings: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activities carried out by the interested party, and c) the conduct of judicial authorities.44 103. In view of the foregoing criteria, the Court considers that in the instant case it was easy to determine the identity of the only alleged victim of the violation of the right to life and integrity, as well as the identity of the alleged perpetrators. Similarly, the circumstances presumably surrounding the facts; i.e. the events occurred at a military post, they were immediately known by the State, the dead body of the alleged victim was found 100 meters away from an infirmary within said post, and the fact that the State had free access to the crime scene, eliminate a large degree of complexity in the instant case. Moreover, the delay in criminal proceedings did not result from the conduct of the relatives of Gerardo Vargas-Areco, but from the inactivity of judicial authorities. In this regard, mention should be made of the fact that the obligation to investigate acts such as those committed in the instant case should be fulfilled ex officio by the State (supra para. 77 to 79). 43 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 289; Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 166; and Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 21, para. 171. 44 Cf. Case of Ximenes-Lopes, supra note 3, para. 196; and Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 3, para. 289; and Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 3, para. 151.