gender and childhood perspective, and in accordance with the duty of strict, enhanced due diligence and the special protection that was required in a complaint of sexual violation against a girl. Therefore, the Court finds that Bolivia is responsible for the violation of the rights to humane treatment, a fair trial, private and family life, the rights of the child and judicial protection, pursuant to Articles 5(1), 8(1), 11(2), 19 and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, as well as for failure to comply with the obligations derived from Articles 7(b) and 7(f) of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Brisa de Angulo Losada. B.2 Reasonable timeframe and the speed of the process 125. The Court has indicated that the right of access to justice in cases of human rights violations must ensure, in a reasonable time, the right of the alleged victims or their next of kin to have everything necessary done to learn the truth about what happened and investigate, prosecute and, where appropriate, punish those possibly responsible.233 Furthermore, a prolonged delay in the process may, in itself, constitute a violation of the right to a fair trial.234 126. Although it is true that, for the purposes of analyzing the reasonable period, in general terms the Court must consider the overall duration of a process until the final judgment is issued,235, in certain particular situations a specific assessment of its different stages may be appropriate.236 In this regard, the Court has established that the assessment of the reasonable period must be analyzed in each specific case, in relation to the total duration of the process, which could also include the execution of the final sentence. Thus, it has considered four elements in order to analyze whether the guarantee of a reasonable period of time was met, namely: (i) the complexity of the matter, 237 (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party,238 (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities,239 interruptions, but also through its position, which could be perceived as hostile. As an example, the Court considers that when the State asked her to “cite the limitations in her life, social relationships, student and economic achievements generated by the events that are the subject of the international complaint,” it implied that the eventual positive development of the personal and professional life of the alleged victim would distort the effects that the alleged failures of the State during the criminal process could have caused. Cf. State's interrogation of the declarant Brisa De Angulo Losada, during the public hearing of the present case. Cf. Case of Bulacio v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 18, 2003. Series C No. 100, para. 114, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 106. 233 234 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 106. Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, para. 71, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021. Series C No. 426, para. 141. 235 Cf. Case of the Afro-descendant communities displaced from the Cacarica River Basin (Operation Genesis) v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2013. Series C No. 270, para. 403, and Case of Grijalva Bueno v. Ecuador, supra, para. 141. 236 Regarding the analysis of the complexity of the matter, the Court has taken into account, among other criteria, the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time elapsed since it became aware of the event that should be investigated, the characteristics of the remedy contained in domestic legislation and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107 and footnote 180. 237 Regarding the activity of the interested party in obtaining justice, the Court has taken into consideration whether the procedural conduct of the interested party has contributed in some degree to unduly prolonging the duration of the process. Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 57, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107 and footnote 181. 238 The Court has understood that, for the judgment to be fully effective, the judicial authorities must act quickly and without delay, because the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the execution procedures be carried out without obstacles or undue delays, so that they achieve their objective quickly, easily and comprehensively. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106, and Case of Sales Pimenta v. Brazil, supra, para. 107 and footnote 182. 239 42