148. Regarding the reasonable time criteria, the Inter-American Court has established that “the right to access to justice means that the settlement of the dispute must take place within a reasonable time, since a prolonged delay can constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.”230 The Commission also notes that the reasonableness of the time taken to conducta n investigation is not measured in comparison to toher cases presented to the Inter-American system, but rather on a case-by-case basis according to relevant criteria aplied to each particular situation, which are: (a) the complexity of the matter, (b) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (c) the procedural activity of the interested party. 231 149. With regard to the circumstances of the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz,the IACHR notes that over the course of the investigation and judicial proceeding, at least four different theories have been put forward as to how he was wounded: i) the first version provided by the National Guardsmen, who gave the parents the news about what had happened, was that Johan Alexis entered the obstacle “the rabbit hole” and when he was moving under the wire fence “he got up” and was hit by the bullets; ii) a second version, reported widely in the news media and based on police reports,was that Johan Alexis had committed suicide; iii) the theory used by the Office of the Military Prosecutor and the Ministry of Public Prosecution was that Johan Alexis’ body was hit byshrapnel or projectile fragments, which had bounced off another obstacle and wounded him while he was moving through the “rabbit hole;” and iv) the theory raised by his parents to the effect that the injuries presented by Johan Alexis were not from the AFAG 7.62 mm caliber weapon fire at all, nor were they caused by shrapnel and that he may not have even made it into “the rabbit hole,” but rather he was wounded “intentionally” at an earlier time. Based on the proven facts, the last two versions were the ones that were argued in the court proceedings with regard to these incidents. 150. Based on these assumptions and the circumstances in which Johan Alexis Ortiz lost his life, a criminal investigation was the only method whereby such facts could be clarified and a determination could be made as to the actions of military officers involved in carrying out the training exercise on February 15, 1998, and establish the degree of potential criminal, disciplinary or any other type of responsibility for these incidents. Consequently, the State was obligated to conduct an independent, impartial, diligent and effective investigation within a reasonable period of time. 151. In light of the standards described above with regard to the substance and the scope of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, the Commission will examine the State’s compliance with the obligations in the following order: i) the requirement of independence and impartiality in the investigation and the actions of the military authorities, who initially conducted the investigation; ii) due diligence in the investigation and iii) reasonableness of the period of time to investigate the facts. Requirement of independence and impartiality and the actions of the military authorities in the investigation 152. The petitioners alleged before domestic authorities and in the proceedings before the Commission, that conducting the investigation into the death of Johan Alexis Ortiz Hernandezunder military criminal jurisdiction and bringing the criminal case against the persons allegedly responsible under said jurisdiction did not comply with the guarantees of independence and impartiality, required by Article 8 and 25 of the Convention. The State has not submitted any response to this contention. 230I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 154; See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Mertis, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, para. 85; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 160. 231IACHR, Report on Merits No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506), December 27, 2002, par. 76. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, para. 35.