108 208. On the other hand, the Court notes that since February 9, 1994, the date on which the Supreme Court of Justice of Guatemala left the proceeding open against the accessories of the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang, the defense counsel filed a large number of legal questions and remedies (amparo remedies, constitutional motions, objections to judges, interlocutory motions, motions regarding lack of competence, appeals for annulment, requests for exemption under the National Reconciliation Law, among others), that have not allowed the proceeding to move forward to its natural culmination. 209. This manner of exercising the means made available by law to the defense counsel has been tolerated and permitted by the intervening judicial bodies, forgetting that their function is not exhausted by enabling due process that guarantees defense in the trial, but that they must also ensure within a reasonable time263 the right of the victim or the victim’s next of kin to know the truth of what happened and for those possibly responsible to be punished.264 210. The right to effective judicial protection therefore requires that the judges direct the proceeding in such a way as to avoid undue delays and obstructions that lead to impunity, thus frustrating due judicial protection of human rights.265 211. In light of the above, the Court deems that the judges, who are in charge of directing the proceeding, have the duty to direct and channel the judicial proceeding with the aim of not sacrificing justice and due legal process in favor of formalism and impunity. Thus, if the authorities permit and tolerate such use of judicial remedies, they turn them into a means for those who commit the illegal act to delay and obstruct the judicial proceeding. This leads to a violation of the international obligation of the State to prevent and protect human rights and it abridges the right of the victim and the next of kin of the victim to know the truth of what happened, for all those responsible to be identified and punished, and to obtain the attendant reparations. g) Reasonable term 212. The Court has deemed proven that in the instant case the limits of a reasonable term have been exceeded, and the State has expressly recognized this since the acknowledgment of international responsibility before the Inter-American Commission on March 3, 2000. 213. This Court also notes that each of the points discussed above has contributed to the fact that a definitive judgment has not been issued that elucidates all the facts pertaining to the extra-legal execution of Myrna Mack Chang and that punishes all those responsible for the facts, including the direct perpetrators, instigators, participants and accessories after the fact, despite the passage of more than thirteen years from the date of the murder. In this regard, the United Nations Verification Mission in Guatemala pointed out in its tenth report that “[i]n the Myrna Mack case, the multiple remedies filed by the accused and the hesitancy of the trial courts to 263 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 114; Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. Case, supra note 260, para. 142 to 144; and Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71 and 72. 264 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 114. 265 Cf. Bulacio Case, supra note 9, para. 115.