82 requires the authorities, to whom the action was addressed, to act. Based on the foregoing, the Court will not make additional considerations in this regard. E. Duration of the Ordinary Action 219. This Court has noted that the right to access to justice should assure, in a reasonable period of time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin that all the necessary is done in order to know the truth of what occurred, and where applicable, the punishment of those responsible.325 The unreasonableness of the period for the development in the legal procedure constitutes, first hand, by itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.326 In this regard, the Court has considered four elements to determine the reasonability of the period: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural actions of the interested parties, c) the conduct of the judicial authorities,327 and d) the harm generated in the legal situation of the persons involved in the process.328 220. The Court observes that the delay in the development of the Ordinary Action cannot be justified due to the complexity of the matter. In effect, in the present case, the purpose of the Ordinary Action, in what is appropriate here, is access to official documents on the military operations against the Guerrilla do Araguaia. In regard to the access to information in State custody, the Court considers that this does not deal solely with a complex request to which a broad delay in the response is justified. The Ordinary Action was filed in 1982 and the judgment of first instance was issued in 2003, 21 years later. On the other hand, since the issuance of said decision until the State initiated compliance of it in 2009, more than six years had passed. 221. In regard to the second element to be considered, of the procedural actions of the next of kin, it is evident that in no moment these have attempted to obstruct the judicial process, much less to delay any decision in this regard; to the contrary, they have come forth at diverse opportunities in order to advance the resolution of the legal procedure. 329 Therefore, the next kin whom filed an Ordinary Action, at no point in time, hindered its development. 222. With respect to the conduct of the authorities in the judicial proceedings, 325 Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para 114; Case of Garibaldi, supra note 18, para. 133, and Case of the Dos Erres Massacre, supra note 186, para. 105. 326 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; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 154, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brasil, supra note 18, para. 133. 327 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 244, and Case of Comunidad Indígena Xákmok Kásek v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, de 2010 Series C No. 214, para. 133. 328 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 326, para. 155; Case of Radilla Pacheco, supra note 24, para. 244, and Case of Comunidad Indígena Xákmok Kásek, supra note 327, para. 133. 329 Cf. inter alia: Brief of the plaintiffs in response to the remedy of the Union, submitted on October 28, 2003 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 5, folios 3901 to 3940); petioner’s brief of November 17, 2004 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 7, folios 3954 to 3963); brief of the plaintiffs in response to the remedy of the Union, submitted on May 4, 2007 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 19, folios 4058 a 4072), and petitioner’s brief of July 8, 2008 (case file of annexes to the brief of pleadings and motions, tome I, annex 7, folios 4079 to 3963).