shows that it was not until May 5, 2008, that the Supreme Court ruled on the objection challenging constitutionality, ruling certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure inapplicable. Thus, the Supreme Court took almost five years to settle the objection, which was precisely intended to prevent the extinguishment of the process. In addition, the IACHR notes that, according to the judgment of the Supreme Court, the case had been on "writ for judgment" since December 18, 2003, and the Public Prosecution Service filed three requests for prompt resolution in 2006 and one in 2007. 94. It should be added that, according to the evidence, a co-plaintiff challenged Dr. Víctor Núñez "with cause," asserting that the case file was "kept" in his office from April 5, 2004, until September 2006, that is, for a period of two years, despite the fact that the relevant “requests for urgency" had been presented. Likewise, after the case file was transferred to another justice, the co-plaintiff reported its disappearance; it reportedly reappeared on March 7, 2007. The IACHR also notes that on May 23, 2007, the challenged justice recused himself from the case and that between May and July 2007, four justices recused themselves from examining the case, until August 7, 2007, when a justice agreed to join the Constitutional Division. 110 In this sense, it does not appear that the State has demonstrated that the judicial authorities acted diligently; on the contrary, according to the record, the authorities were apparently responsible for delaying the process. 95. With respect to the fourth element, the IACHR considers that the fact that the proceedings lasted nearly 20 years before a judgment at first instance was reached resulted in a denial of access to justice to the detriment of Mr. López. 96. In addition, the State itself acknowledged that proceedings were lengthened due to malicious practice on the part of defense counsels of the accused, "relying on a criminal system still lacking in infrastructure and relatively new.” In conclusion, the IACHR considers that the criminal proceeding in relation to the alleged torture of Mr. López took an unduly long period of time that has not been justified by the State. 97. Based on the foregoing, the Commission considers that the investigation has not been carried out diligently and within a reasonable time. Consequently, the Commission concludes that the State also violated to his detriment Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) of the same instrument. Furthermore, taking into account that the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture entered into force in Paraguay on March 9, 1990, Commission notes that, according to the case law of the InterAmerican Court, from that date forward the obligations contained in that treaty were enforceable for the State.111 Accordingly, the Commission finds that the failure to take effective steps to prevent and punish torture in this case also constitutes a violation of the obligations set forth in Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 98. The Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violation of the rights to humane treatment, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection established in Articles 5(1), 5(2), 7(1), 7(2), 7(4), 7(5), 8(1), and 25(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge López Sosa. Likewise, the Commission concludes that the State is responsible for violation of Articles 1, 6, and 8 of the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture. 99. Based on the foregoing arguments of fact and law, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF PARAGUAY: 1. Provide full reparation for the human rights violations found in the instant report that covers both material and nonpecuniary dimensions. The State should adopt measures of economic compensation and satisfaction. Annex 7, Decision and Judgment No. 195 of May 5, 2008. Enclosed with the State's communication of August 27, 2008. I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of September 7, 2004, Series C. No. 114, par. 159. 110 111 23