39. Concerning the exhaustion of local remedies, the Respondent State, without meaningfully contesting the facts as reported by the Complainant, submits that in the circumstances of the case, remedies existed and were effective, but that the Complainant failed to exhaust them. In addition, the Respondent State argues that the procedural timeframes were reasonable. 40. Concerning the availability and effectiveness of remedies, the Respondent State contends that the Complainant had the opportunity of seizing the judicial authorities in charge of the case to request the annulment of several decisions or appeal against decisions delivered at first instance or on appeal. According to the Respondent State, the responses to these petitions and the decisions of the trial courts are evidence of the effectiveness of local remedies. 41. In addition, the Respondent State underscores that acquittal decisions were rendered in favour of the Complainant and that the latter lodged an appeal against a conviction decision which is still pending before the Supreme Court. The Respondent State concludes that remedies have not been exhausted. 42. Regarding the issue of remedies being prolonged, the Respondent State argues that an assessment of the length of the procedure must take into account not only the complexity of the case and the conduct of the parties, but also the legal framework of procedural timeframes. 43. As regards the complexity of the case, the Respondent State argues that the nature of the facts as reported and the status of the individuals involved dictated the conduct of the proceedings. This complexity called for many investigations and the developments in the investigations required several separations. With particular regard to the separations, the Respondent State notes that such 10