activity of the interested party; c) the behavior of the judicial authorities;195 and, d) the effects that the delay in the proceedings may have on the judicial situation of the victim. 196. In this regards the Commissions notes that the case must be studied taking into consideration its particular circumstances. 218. In the case before us, the Commission notes that Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles was arrested on August 2, 1994 and the Judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, which settled the case “on review,” was handed down on November 24, 1998. This means that the length of the criminal proceedings against Mr. Domingo Revelles was 4 years and three months. The Commission will proceed to analyze the above mentioned period of time in accordance with the criteria earlier described. 219. Firstly, and regarding the complexity of the case, the Commission notes the State indicated that it was a complex case, since it involved around thirty-three suspects, the size of the case file –six hundred pages – and the complexity of the crimes themselves for which the suspects were indicted. In this regards, the Commission notes that even though the case was related to an alleged cocaine hydrochloride trafficking operation, for which twelve individuals were taken into custody, the investigation files available to the Commission indicate that an individualized process was finally instituted exclusively in relation to Mr. Eusebio Sunday Revelles. The Commission also observes that since the beginning of the investigation until the final judgment of the Fourth Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice, the evidences used as basis to stablish the criminal liability of the accused were at the disposal of the judicial authorities from the initial stage of the process and included the declaration of the detainees made during the preliminary investigations and the existence of drugs and evidences found in a wine vault and hotels where the accused were staying, The above mentioned evidences were described in the police report that was issued just 6 days after the detentions of the victims. The Commission is not aware of subsequent complex proceedings which have been taken into account to determine the criminal responsibility of Mr. Revelles. Therefore, the Commission finds that the complexity argument made by the State in general terms regarding the initial operative bears no link with the facts and law that were finally analyzed in order to stablish the individual responsibility of Eusebio Domingo Revelles. 220. Secondly, and regarding the procedural activity of the victim, the Commission notes the State claimed that Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles “never cooperated with the investigation activities.” On this aspect, the Commission notes that it was precisely the duty of the state, by conducting an investigation, to determine whether there was evidence undermining the presumption of innocence of the defendant. In any case, the Commission notes that at no time was the conduct of Mr. Eusebio Domingo Revelles did not aim to obstruct the progress of the proceedings, and the record shows that he only filed a single motion to contest the order to open the full trial stage. 221. Finally, regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission observes that in the present case the authorities who dealt with the process from the beginning placed Mr. Domingo Revelles in a situation of illegal and arbitrary freedom deprivation, in which he remained throughout the duration of the process. Nevertheless they imposed that measures against the victim, measure that should have been exceptional, the judicial authorities delayed more than four years to establish criminal responsibility. Even though since the beginning they had at their disposal the totality of the evidences that finally were used to condemn Mr. Domingo Revelles, they delayed that long. 222. The Commission notes that the State justified the delay through the work load of the Ecuadorian courts at the time and, it moved for the Commission to apply a criterion used by the European Court of Human Rights in the Deumeland case, in which it was determined that “a temporary backlog of court business” does not engage the international responsibility of the State. 195 IA Court of HR, Case of Bayarri v. Argentina. Judgment of October 30, 2008. Series C No, 187, para. 72; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 6, 2006. Series C No. 147, para. 151. 196 IA Court of HR, Case of Valle Jaramillo v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. 51