public officials accountable – administratively, disciplinarily, or criminally – when their actions are not in keeping with the law.143 158. In this respect, the IACHR notes that the family members of Mr. Poblete Vilches have indicated repeatedly that they did not give consent for the procedure performed on January 26, 2001. In addition, from a mere reading of the medical record it is clear that the supposed consent did not satisfy the minimum characteristics to be able to be considered adequate. One also learns from reading the medical record that the physician in charge in Mr. Poblete Vilches’s second admission explicitly indicated that he was not certain that the family members had understood. Despite that, there was no investigation into the possible criminal or administrative liabilities arising from this situation. 159. Based on all these elements, taken together, the Commission considers that the Chilean State did not investigate the facts of the instant case with due diligence. 4.2 On the duty to investigate in a reasonable time 160. With respect to the alleged breach of the judicial guarantee of criminal proceedings going forward in a reasonable time, the Commission will examine the four criteria established in the relevant case-law: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (iv) the impact on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.144 161. The Court has taken into account several criteria for determining the complexity of a matter. These include the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of plaintiffs or the number of victims, the time elapsed since the violation, the characteristics of the remedy as set forth in the domestic legislation, and the context in which the violation occurred. 145 162. The Commission observes that the instant case has to do with an alleged manslaughter to the detriment of a single victim, which occurred in a public hospital, in which some physicians were purportedly involved. The Commission does not find any grounds to consider that the instant case involved a level of complexity that would justify the more than 14 years during which it has remained pending. 163. As regards the activity of the family members, the Commission observes that it was at their initiative, through the criminal complaints lodged, that the investigations were begun and given impetus. There is no information whatsoever in the record that would allow one to consider that the delay was due to their acts or omissions. To the contrary, one can glean that most of the judicial actions took place at the initiative of the family members. In those petitions they requested repeatedly, among other things, that the court carry out the relevant investigative steps for obtaining the statements from persons who potentially bear liability and witnesses, as well as the exhumation and autopsy of the corpse of Mr. Poblete Vilches. Moreover, on two occasions they asked that the case be reactivated after it was dismissed on more than one occasion. 164. With respect to the activity of the judicial authorities, the Commission refers to the analysis in the previous section on the breach of the duty to investigate with due diligence. Moreover, 143 IACHR, Report No. 80/11, Case 12,626, Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) et al., United States, Merits, July 21, 2011, para. 178; IACHR, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas, OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68 (January 20, 2007), para. 77; United Nations, Crime prevention and criminal justice measures to eliminate violence against women, resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/52/86, February 2, 1998, Annex, Section II. IV 170. 144 See 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 Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 255. Tggl298 145 See, inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Granier et al. (Radio Caracas Televisión) v. Venezuela, para. 260. Tggl 298 32