by Ms. Bedoya during the public hearing held before this Court, 313 this was recognized by a Special Agent of the Office of the Public Prosecutor itself. 314 The State’s actions meant that even 11 years after the facts, it had gotten no results, and it was not until 2016—that is, more than 15 years after the facts of May 25, 2000—that it secured the first criminal conviction of one of the perpetrators of the facts. 315 Still, the identity of the intellectual authors of the aforementioned facts and the identities of other accomplices who may have participated remain unknown. 145. Regarding the effect of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person involved, this Court has established that if the passage of time will have a significant impact on the judicial situation of the individual, the proceedings must be carried out more promptly so that the case is decided as soon as possible. 316 In this case, the Court observes that because it involved a woman journalist who was the victim of sexual violence, the judicial authorities should have acted with the utmost diligence while collecting evidence and during the investigations and legal proceedings into the facts of this case, these judicial actions were necessary in order to investigate and punish those responsible for serious acts of violence against women—and sexual violence in particular—in an incident that, moreover, represented a clear attack on the media in general. This passage of time perpetuated that situation and sensation—both individually for Ms. Bedoya and collectively for the media and Colombian society—of impunity for this type of crime in a context of alarmingly-high rates of violence against journalists. 146. Therefore, the Court concludes that Colombia also violated the reasonable period of time for the investigation and prosecution of the aforementioned facts of May 25, 2000. b.1.4 Conclusion 147. The Commission therefore concludes that the State violated the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection established in articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to articles 1(1) and 24 of the treaty, as well as Article 7(b) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Ms. Bedoya. b.2 Regarding the threats received before and after May 25, 2000 148. The Court notes that the State recognized that it did not comply with the standard of due diligence with respect to the investigation of the threats Ms. Bedoya received before and after the aforementioned facts of May 25, 2000, as well as the lack of investigation of the attack on Ms. Bedoya and her mother on May 27, 1999 (supra chapter V). Because no dispute persists on this matter, the Court will not analyze the facts from the perspective of the violations recognized by the State, namely, violations of Articles 5, 11, 8, and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the 1(1) of the Convention, as well as articles 1, 6 and 8 of the ICPPT. However, the Court does deem it necessary to analyze the impact that the lack of due diligence in the investigation of the threats Ms. 313 On this point, Ms. Bedoya indicated that the process "was paralyzed for 11 years and only when [it was presented] before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was it reactivated again." Cfr. Statement from Jineth Bedoya Lima given at the public hearing held on March 15, 22, and 23, 2021 within the framework of the 140th regular sessions. 314 The official expressed to Ms. Bedoya her empathy for “the pain she feels when reliving those experiences. If it were not for [the] investigation, which produced no results after eleven years, [she] must answer to you and to Colombia for this case.” Cf. Sworn statement of Jineth Bedoya Lima, November 26, 2011 (evidence file, folio 803). 315 Cf. Fifth Criminal Court of the Bogotá Specialized Circuit, Judgment of February 24, 2016 (evidence file, folio 24090 and 24091). Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of the Employees of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antonio de Jesus v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 224. 316 54