his complaint. There is no information that the above-mentioned evaluation took into account the parameters explained above (supra par. 83). Although the Commission understands that the alleged victim subsequently underwent a victimological diagnosis, which confirmed the occurrence of torture, there is no detailed information to show that it met all the aforementioned requirements. 87. The Commission notes that the oral trial reportedly did not begin until August 20, 2019; that is, 19 years after criminal proceedings for torture were instituted. A judgment was returned on December 30, 2019, acquitting the defendants. The Commission notes that the ruling was supposedly based on a lack of scientific evidence that offered certainty that the alleged victims had been physically tortured, and it argued that there was reasonable doubt as to the existence of the illicit act, given the contradictory testimonies in the case, and that the combined evidence was "unsuitable and insufficient to find the accused guilty (...) of an alleged act of torture.” 88. The IACHR also notes that, according to what the State mentioned in its communication of November 13, 2020, appeals are pending with respect to the aforementioned judgment, in particular that filed by the Public Prosecution Service. In that regard, the IACHR finds it particularly troubling that 20 years after the events there is no final decision on the alleged torture. 89. In addition, the Commission observes that although the judgment states that some witnesses said that they were tortured, the court considered that "they were not included by the Public Prosecution Service in the indictment as victims of the act, so the court could scarcely convict the accused (...), for the acts that they have mentioned." In that respect, the IACHR observes that, in spite of the fact that the court was apparently informed of crimes of torture by witnesses, there is nothing to suggest that it ordered any further investigation in that regard, so that the findings of such inquiries might help to establish responsibility in this case. 90. In these circumstances, which reflect shortcomings in the investigation into the torture of the alleged victim, the Commission also notes that the investigation has taken an unreasonably long time, as will be analyzed below. 91. As for the complexity of the case, the IACHR finds nothing in the record to suggest that the investigations were particularly complex, since the facts refer to a specific person, and the perpetrators are clear subjects for investigation in clearly determined circumstances in terms of place, space, and time. The IACHR recalls that the State did not present any observations on merits in this matter, and with respect to its comments on admissibility it merely noted, with respect to the delay in the criminal proceedings, that the holdups were due to "apparent malicious practice by the defendants' defense counsels, relying on a criminal system still lacking in infrastructure and relatively new." In this regard, it indicated that there was no apparent likelihood of further dilatory interference in the process, given the change in the political context in Paraguay, and that it was committed to ensuring that the process was conducted with unrestricted respect for the procedural deadlines provided by domestic law. The Commission is not aware of subsequent complex proceedings which have been taken into account to determine the criminal responsibility of the accused persons. The State has not presented any arguments or evidence to that effect. The section on proven facts refers to various proceedings concerning incidental motions and remedies invoked by the defendants. Indeed, according to the information available, in 2018, the judge in the case reportedly sanctioned Walter Bower as a "bad faith litigant for 17 years." 92. As for the procedural activity of the interested party, as the State itself mentioned, the delays evidently had to do with the "malicious" action of the defense of the accused. The record appears to show that the alleged victim participated in the process and identifies no actions on his part that would have delayed the case. 93. With respect to the conduct of the domestic authorities, the Commission notes that in the instant case the State did not explain or provide specific evidence to demonstrate that the judicial authorities acted with the necessary diligence to ensure a timely and diligent decision. The IACHR notes that, anticipating the “demise” of the case, on September 8, 2003, the Public Prosecution Service filed an objection challenging the constitutionality of certain articles of the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure that the defense of the accused persons sought to use to justify extinction of the criminal action. Likewise, the record 22