33 113. From the case file it can be seen that, on May 30, 2006, it was decided to close the preliminary investigation stage and that the case file be forwarded to the corresponding court for processing the full trial. Nevertheless, this order could not be executed because, on various dates in April 2006, those accused requested the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure in force,106 and the processing of the case was therefore suspended until this point had been decided.107 The request was admitted on March 13, 2007, by Chamber IV of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber. Consequently, an order was issued for the return of the case file to the original court, so that the case could be processed in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure in force.108 On March 28, 2007, Mr. Bayarri filed a special federal recourse109 that was rejected on November 12, 2007. 110 On February 25 and 29, 2008, respectively, Juan Carlos Bayarri111 and the National Criminal Prosecutor for preliminary proceedings who had been assigned to the case112 requested that the case should be sent to trial. On March 1, 2008, the accused contested this request and filed the objection that a statute of limitations applied to the criminal action.113 114. The Court finds that approximately 16 years have elapsed and the criminal case is still underway in the domestic jurisdiction. The State acknowledged the existence of a delay up until June 1, 2004, and argued that, as of that date, the delay was explained by the complexity of the case and by the opposition of Mr. Bayarri’s representatives to the accused being processed under the code of Criminal Procedure in force. Although the Court acknowledges that, as of 2006, the State has guided, with relative promptness, several judicial proceedings, particularly those relating to the settlement of the dispute concerning the application of the law on criminal procedure, the period of approximately 15 years taken by the investigation is excessive. The same can be said of the 16 years that have elapsed without a final judgment being handed down. This violates the right of the alleged victims and their next of kin to know, within a reasonable time, the truth of what happened, which requires the State’s actions to be diligent and effective. Consequently, the Court finds that it is not necessary to examine the criteria established for assessing the reasonableness of the duration of the proceedings (supra para. 107). 115. Furthermore, this delay has had consequences other than the violation of reasonable time, such as an evident denial of justice. First, the fact that the preliminary investigation folios 02 to 08). See also the decision of October 30, 1998, issued by Chamber VII of the National Criminal and Correctional Appeals Chamber of the Federal Capital (file of attachments to the application, attachment 4.2, folios 539 and 540). 106 Cf. briefs of Carlos Alberto Sablich, Carlos Jacinto Gutiérrez, Julio Roberto Ontivero, Delfor Panelli, Vicente Luis Palo and Alberto Alejandro Armentano, (helpful evidence submitted by the State, File 66.138-1996Cuerpo16.pdf, pages 229 to 243, and 247 to 248). 107 Cf. decision of July 12, 2006, handed down by the Judge of First Instance Facundo Cubas (helpful evidence submitted by the State, File 66.138-1996-Cuerpo16.pdf, page 469). 108 Cf. helpful evidence submitted by the State (File 66.138-1996-Cuerpo17.pdf, pages 463 to 475). 109 Cf. helpful evidence submitted by the State (File 66.138-1996-Cuerpo18.pdf, pages 5 to 69). 110 Cf. decision of November 12, 2007, issued by Chamber IV of the National Criminal Cassation Chamber (helpful evidence submitted by the State, File 66.138-1996-Cuerpo19.pdf, pages 179 to 181). 111 Cf. undated brief of the proceedings (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996Cuerpo19.pdf, page 312). 112 Cf. undated brief of the Prosecutor’s Office (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996Cuerpo19.pdf, page 354). 113 Cf. brief of Vicente Luis Palo’s defense lawyer (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996Cuerpo19.pdf, page 395 to 409); and brief of Alberto Armentano’s defense lawyer (helpful evidence submitted by the State, file 66.138-1996-Cuerpo19.pdf, pages 411 to 436).