- 110 - easily identifiable.418 Regarding the procedural activity of the interested parties, the Court notes that there is no evidence that the eleven women victims in this case took steps that obstructed the progress of the investigations; to the contrary, as revealed by the proven facts, the victims played an active role in furthering the proceedings, offering different items of evidence. 419 With regard to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court considers that there were delays in the investigations as a result of the inactivity of the authorities and the failure of the authorities in charge of the investigation to act with due diligence. Indeed, the Court notes that: (i) the confidentiality of the preliminary inquiry was ordered, and this remained in force for more than three years;420 (ii) the restrictive interpretation of the crime of torture made by the judicial authorities, as well as the time that passed from the refusal of the arrest warrants requested by the Public Prosecution Service up until the moment in which the action was corrected and completed, led to an additional delay of three years in the prosecution of 26 of the 29 accused in criminal case 418/11; (iii) to date, all those responsible have not been investigated. Lastly, regarding the effect on the legal situation of those involved in the proceedings, the Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual involved, the proceedings must move forward with greater diligence so that the case is decided promptly.421 In this case, the effects on the legal situation of the eleven women is evident because, owing to the type of violation analyzed, the delay resulted in greater difficulties to obtain evidence, thus favoring impunity. 309. Based on the above, the Court concludes that the State violated the judicial guarantees of due diligence and reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to Article 1(1) of this instrument, to the detriment of the eleven women victims in this case. B.3 Gender-based discrimination based on the flaws in the investigation 310. In the instant case, the Court has already referred to the flaws in the initial stages of the investigation, especially in the collection and handling of the evidence (supra paras. 272 and ff.). The refusal to accept the complaints made by the women, the absence of medical and gynecological care, the failure to conduct the pertinent medical and psychological appraisals – especially the gynecological tests – as well as the deficient handling of the evidence collected, reveal not only non-compliance with due diligence, but also that the State failed to conduct the In fact, the State had, not only the lists drawn up by the SCJN in its judgment, but also the information gathered by the CNDH in the context of Recommendation 38/2006, and the police records of the operations. 418 This Court finds it necessary to note that the refusal by some of the women victims in this case to submit for a second time to the appraisals requested by the PGR cannot be interpreted as an action that obstructed the progress of the proceedings, because the said appraisals must always be made with the victim’s consent and, if this consent is not forthcoming, this should not prejudice the progress of the investigation; rather, it is for the State to carry out other procedures in order to clarify the facts and punish those responsible. This is particularly relevant in this case, because most of the women had already undergone the appraisals to which the State failed to grant probative sufficiency in order to avoid the re-victimizing experience that having to undergo such appraisals for a second time signifies for a woman victim of torture and rape. 419 In this regard, although this did not entail a total paralization of the investigation, an analysis of the list of procedures provided by the State reveals that, for the three years that the inquiry was kept confidential, the intensity of the investigative activities was reduced considerably, so that, with a few exceptions, most of the procedures were of a formal nature such as the processing of documentation or the exchange of communications (evidence file, folios 33383 to 33394). 420 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 185. 421