-24carried out within a reasonable time;111 the investigation by the ordinary jurisdiction took 14 years because the case was sent to the archive in application of the amnesty laws; the unjustified delay between 1995 and 2003 after sending the case to the archive in implementing the procedures to locate and arrest Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo, and the delay in complying with the obligation to pay reparations. 91. The representatives also argued that the State did not conduct a diligent investigation since the authorities did not take the testimonies of the patrol members and of the accused. In addition, once the case was sent to the archive in 2003, on four occasions an extension of the investigation was requested and that during those extensions the requested procedures were not pursued. They also alleged, inter alia, a failure on the part of the authorities, especially those belonging to the military jurisdiction, to collaborate in locating and placing Sgt. Evangelista Pinedo at their disposal; a lack of diligence in investigating, which is proved by the excessive length of the proceedings; the lack of information to indentify and individualize those responsible and the failure to serve the full measure of “personal restriction.” The representatives also indicated that all the individuals and all the facts of the case were not taken into account during the trial since the State did not investigate those who should have exercised proper control over their subordinates. 92. According to the State, the competent agencies to administer justice in Peru ensured that the individual responsible for the incident was identified, investigated, tried and punished and compensation was paid as a consequence of the incident. It concluded that this demonstrates that the investigations were compatible with the judicial guarantees and the judicial protection established in the Convention. It maintained that the right to a reasonable time was not infringed112 because the lapse of time between the 27th Criminal Prosecutor’s first complaint and the modifications to the criminal system of Peru as a consequence of the Court’s Judgment in the Barrios Altos case should not be considered in calculating the duration. It claimed that the State had already been sanctioned by that Court and that, in complying with the Barrios Altos decision, it had acted to make the domestic system compatible with international standards. It added that the computation of time to establish an infringement of the principle of a reasonable time should begin from January 21, 2003, when the Lima court ordered the removal of the case file from the archive, to the date that the conviction was reaffirmed on July 23, 2008. 93. Finally, the State argued that there was no delay in complying with the payment of civil redress since that payment was subject to the procedures established in the budgetary law and that a period of two years and six months to comply with the totality of the obligation of a final judgment was reasonable and within the terms of the Convention. The State maintained that there were grounds for all of the requests for an extension of the committal proceedings. It added that the fact that the representatives could not contest the sentence due to the provisions of Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not infringe any right and that it is not in the interest of the civil complainants that the sentence be increased.113 They indicated that it was not a complex case; that the family members of the victims deployed the necessary actions for the investigations to be carried out, and that the conduct of the authorities in charge of the process were negligent. 111 The State added that it is a question of a complex procedure since Evangelista Pinedo was a member of the Army, which led to a request of recusal by the military jurisdiction. It indicated that the petitioners did not comply with the procedure of the legalization of international decisions established in Article 151 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, which is why the request for a reopening received a negative opinion; and that Evangelista Pinedo was tried a second time because he was a fugitive from justice for a certain period. 112 The State also indicated that the representatives could have asked that this norm not be applied in the specific case, pursuant to Article 138 of the Political Constitution of Peru, but that they did not do so. 113