the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the conduct of judicial authorities.163 In addition, the Court considered that it is also necessary to take into account the interest affected by the delay.164 2. Analysis of the case 85. In the present case, the petitioners alleged irregularities in the investigation of the events of June 30, 2005, a violation of the reasonable time to carry out the investigation and the trial of the case, and a violation of the right to a effective remedy due to the procedural impossibility of the next-of-kin to promote the closure of the investigation and initiate the trial phase. 86. With respect to the alleged irregularities in the investigation, the Commission only has evidence regarding the impossibility of carrying out the reconstruction of the events. In this regard, it was verified that due to the delay in performing the reconstruction of events until October 2006, during those 16 months the facilities of INAM-San Félix were entirely modified, and so the reconstruction "could not be duly carried out." 87. However, from an overall view of the investigation based on the information available, the Commission finds in this case that the investigation carried out by the authorities seems to have uncovered what happened that and identified those responsible within of the INAM-San Félix. In this regard, the IACHR emphasizes that the narrative contained in the formal indictment of the Center’s officials coincides substantially with the facts that the Commission was able to verify from the evidence provided largely by the petitioner. However, the Commission finds that in this case there has been a clear violation of the reasonable time limit, given that more than 13 years have passed since the death of the victims and 12 years since the alleged perpetrators were charged in 2006. From the available information it is apparent that the domestic proceedings are ongoing, so that the events remain in a situation of impunity, without the completion of a trial and any determination of the appropriate punishment for the varying degrees of responsibility that may be determined in this case. This includes the authorities that were present at the Center on the day of the events, and those whose omissions may have contributed to the ongoing structural problems identified in this report. 88. Regarding the alleged violation of the right to an effective remedy, the Commission considers that, for the reasons described in this section, it is possible to arrive at the conclusion that domestic proceedings have not constituted an effective remedy for the next-of-kin of the deceased youths, in terms of truth, justice and reparation. In this regard, the Commission considers that it is not necessary to make a finding on the alleged specific violation in connection with criminal procedural rules on the presentation of the conclusive act. 89. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Commission concludes that the State failed to provide the relatives of the victims, duly identified in the section on proven facts, with an effective remedy to clarify what happened and establish the corresponding responsibilities, in violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in relation to Article 1.1 of the same instrument. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90. Based on the findings of fact and law, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 4.1 (life), 5.1, 5.4, 5.5 and 5.6 (personal integrity), 8.1 (judicial guarantees) and 25.1 (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 19 of the same instrument, to the detriment of José Gregorio Mota Abarullo, Gabriel de Jesús Yáñez Sánchez, Rafael Antonio Parra Herrera, Cristián Arnaldo Molina Cordova, Johan José Correa and their families, in the terms explained throughout this report. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF VENEZUELA Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006, para. 102; Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006, para. 289; Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. Judgment of April 6, 2006, para. 151. 164 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Judgment of November 27, 2008, para. 155. 163