106. Having said that, quite apart from the fact that the supply of paper for making photocopies is, per se, an excessive requirement for accessing justice, the Commission finds that in this case, the failure to provide paper was not even applicable as a cause of inadmissibility since the appellant did not refuse to cover the expenses of the referral of the proceeding.205 On the contrary, as was established in the section on facts, Mrs. Acosta’s representative expressed an interest in complying with that requirement and, on May 22, 2002, presented the money for the photocopying expenses to the secretary of the court, but the money was not taken. Furthermore, in his brief lodging the interlocutory appeal [recurso de reforma] of May 22, 2002, María Luisa Acosta's representative requested that "when the time came for admitting the appeal [he] be permitted to deposit the necessary amount in local currency to photocopy the entire record."206 107. In this connection, the IACHR also notes that both the Assistant Prosecutor of the RAAS and the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua spoke out against the denial of the appeal in question. The former said that the rejection of the appeal "flew in the face of all legal logic,”207 while the latter said that the appeal had been wrongly denied and that the decision confirmed the errors in the proceeding connected with the investigation into the murder of Mr. García Valle.208 108. In this regard, the IACHR finds that by rejecting the appeal against the acquittal of the alleged instigators based on an unreasonable formality, and by having prevented Mrs. Acosta's representative from meeting said formality, the State stopped a proceeding aimed at establishing the identities of the persons who masterminded the murder of Mister García Valle from continuing. 3. The right to have Francisco García Valle's murder investigated within a reasonable time 109. Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes as one of the elements of a fair trial that tribunals reach a decision on cases submitted for their consideration within a reasonable time. In that regard, a prolonged delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the right to a fair trial,209 and that, therefore, it is for the State to explain and prove why it has required more time than would be reasonable to deliver final judgment in a specific case.210 In that connection, reasonableness of time must be analyzed with regard to the total duration of the criminal process.211 Under the terms of Article 8(1) of the Convention, the Commission will consider, in light of the specific circumstances of the case, the three elements that it consistently takes 205In that regard, Article 471 of the Code Of Civil Procedure stipulates that an appeal shall be declared void when the appellant refuses to cover the expenses of the referral of the proceeding. In addition, Article 2045 of that code provides that judges have the power to order the secretary to require the parties to provide the necessary paper to make copies of the record and to impose a fine on any who refuses to provide it. The same provision states that if the appellant does not supply the paper by the third day after the fine is imposed, the judge may set aside the appeal. 206Appendix 99. Interlocutory appeal filed by the representative of Mrs. Acosta with the District Criminal Court of Bluefields, May 22, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folio 202. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 207Appendix 100. Second hearing writ (Escrito de segundas vistas] to the District Civil and Criminal Court. of the In. of Bluefields, December 24, 2002. Trial court file No. 110-02, folios 268-270. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 208Appendix 134. Response of the Assistant Prosecutor in Managua to the grievances raised by the applicant in the appeal for annulment. Case file No. 2019-2004 of the appeal for annulment to the Supreme Court of Justice, folios 80-86. Appendix to the petitioners' communication of July 13, 2007. 209IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Merits (Florentín Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Álvarez et al.), Guatemala, March 21, 2012, par. 148; I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; I/A Court H.R., Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and I/A Court H.R., Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 160. 210IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Merits (Florentín Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Álvarez et al.), Guatemala, March 21, 2012, par. 148; I/A Court H.R., Case of Ricardo Canese v. Paraguay. Judgment of August 31, 2004. Series C No. 111, par. 142. 211IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Merits (Florentín Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Álvarez et al.), Guatemala, March 21, 2012, par. 148; I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 129; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, par. 104; and I/A Court H.R., Case of Tibi v. Ecuador. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, par. 168.