into account in keeping with its case-law: (a) the complexity of the case; (b) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (c) the procedural activity of the interested party212. The Commission considers that the fourth element established in the case law of the inter-American system is not essential to the analysis in this case. 110. In this case, the investigation began on April 8, 2002, and concluded on December 22, 2006, when a decision was issued on the cassation appeal (casación) lodged by Mrs. Acosta. Therefore, the investigation and criminal proceeding lasted four years and eight months. 111. As regards the first element, the Commission notes that there were no complexities in this case and that the State, for its part, did not make submissions or offer evidence along those lines Indeed, this is not a case in which there were multiple victims, the circumstances of the murder were not particularly complex and, on the contrary, each of the possible perpetrators and instigators was singled out and there were witnesses. 112. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Commission finds that there were delays that were not warranted according to the specific procedural time limits. Thus, for example, with regard to the cassation appeal (casación) against the judgment lodged with the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice, the Commission sees that the appeal was presented by Mrs. Acosta's representative on December 27, 2004, and, in spite of the fact that the processing was encompassed by a procedural stage in which no evidence was being gathered, it took two years for the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice to turn down the appeal. The Commission also notes that the authorities delayed in conducting procedures that would have helped to clarify the facts in this case and that those procedures directly concerned Mr. Tsokos’ part in Mr. García Valle's murder. In that regard, it took the police more than five months after receiving the bullet from the Alternate Forensic Scientist to provide the District Criminal Court with the ballistic report that determined that the bullet had been discharged from a firearm owned by Peter Tsokos 113. However, quite apart from the specific delays that occurred in the collection of evidence and the various appeals, the Commission notes on this point the omissive attitude of the state authorities in following up on circumstantial evidence concerning the identities of the instigators and in opening and pursuing lines of inquiry in that regard. That omission—which the Commission has already found to be a form of abetment (encubrimiento)—has gone on for more than a decade without any justification. The same is true of the delays in taking steps to identify the third perpetrator. On this point it is worth mentioning the delay and contempt (desacato) committed by the Committee for Disciplinary Matters and the Supreme Court of Justice in responding to the complaints presented by Mrs. Acosta and toward the recommendations made by the PDDH. 114. With regard to the third element, there is nothing in the record to suggest that the delays could be attributed to Mr. García Valle's family. On the contrary, in spite of the fact that the State had an ex officio obligation to move the investigation forward in this case, the Commission notes that Mr. García Valle’s family adopted an active position from the start of the process by bringing the information in their possession to the attention of the authorities—when they were permitted to do so. They also attempted a number of appeals and motions on incidental matters in the proceedings, in addition to disciplinary remedies, with the aim of moving the process forward. 115. In sum, the Commission considers that there were several unwarranted delays during the investigation and criminal proceeding, particularly in disposing of the a cassation appeal (casación), which amounted to a violation of the reasonable-time guarantee 212 IACHR, Report No. 56/12, Merits (Florentín Gudiel Ramos, Makrina Gudiel Álvarez et al.), Guatemala, March 21, 2012, par. 148; IACHR, Report No. 77/02, Merits, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro y José Víctor dos Santos (Case 11.506), December 27, 2002par. 76. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, par. 132; ; 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.