they asked that the court decide the case promptly. 294 Also, on at least three occasions, the plaintiffs reactivated the case following a period of inactivity295 and, in July 2007, the complainants indicated that “the period for producing evidence had been greatly exceeded.” 296 In addition, both parties desisted from evidence, which, in principle, should have contributed to expediting the proceeding. 297 176. The Court recalls that it is the State, through its judicial authorities, that should lead the proceeding. In this regard, according to the legislation on civil procedure applicable to this case, the judge had the obligation to direct the proceeding, maintaining equality between the parties to the proceeding, ensuring the greatest procedural economy in the processing of the case, 298 and avoiding a standstill in the proceeding. 299 However, the Court notes that there have been several periods of inactivity in the civil proceeding that can be attributed entirely to the judicial authorities. 300 Furthermore, there has been a lack of diligence on the part of the 16, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1651); decision of August 4, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1652), and brief of May 29, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 443). 294 Cf. Brief of February 1, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2243); brief of August 22, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2636), and brief of March 9, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2461). 295 Cf. Brief of June 16, 2000 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1982); brief of May 19, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1642), and brief of May 29, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 443). 296 Brief of July 9, 2007 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2611). 297 See, for example: brief of November 6, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2685), and undated brief desisting from evidence (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2662). 298 Article 34(5) of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires establishes that the judge must: “[d]irect the proceeding, and must, within the limits expressly established in this Code: (a) merge, insofar as possible, into a single act or hearing all the measures that need to be taken; (b) indicate, before processing any petition, its defects or omissions, ordering that they be rectified within the time frame that he establishes, and order, ex officio, any measure necessary to avoid nullities; (c) maintain equality between the parties to the proceeding; (d) prevent and sanction any act contrary to the obligations of loyalty, probity and good faith; (e) ensure that the greatest possible procedural economy is observed when processing the case. Decree Law 7425/69, Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, art. 34(5) (annexes to the representatives’ final written arguments, folio 2889, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-7425.html). 299 Article 36 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires regulates the judge’s powers to issue orders and instructions, establishing that: “[e]ven in the absence of a request from one of the parties, the judges and courts may: (1) take measures to avoid a standstill in the proceedings. To this end, once a time frame has expired, whether or not the corresponding right has been exercised, the following procedural stage shall be undertaken, ordering ex officio the necessary measures.” Decree Law 7425/69, Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, art. 36 (annexes to the representatives’ final written arguments, folio 2889, available at http://www.gob.gba.gov.ar/legislacion/legislacion/l-7425.html). 300 See, for example: (i) on October 19, 1998, the case file was forwarded to the criminal court, in response to that court’s request regarding the processing and status of the civil proceeding, and it was not until four months and fourteen days later that it was returned. The Court stresses that the criminal judge himself explained that the delay was due to the fact that he had not “noticed that the civil case file had been received”; (ii) between June 1999 and April 2000 there was another period of inactivity of 10 months, due to a request for a declaration of nullity and an appeal for reconsideration of the judgment with subsidiary appeal; (iii) on March 19, 2002, an order was issued to refer the case file to the Appellate Chamber so that the latter could decide an appeal, which was only declared to have been granted erroneously one year later, and the Chamber took one more month to return the case file to the first instance court, and it was not until June 5, 2003, that the judge took up the proceeding again; (iv) in October 2004, the Appellate Chamber requested the case file in order to decide a matter related to the interlocutory proceeding on execution of fees; this request was not included in the case file until two months and nine days later, when its whereabouts were located. On February 1, 2005, the presumed victims asked that the requested case file be delivered to the Appellate Chamber. The evidence provided to the Court does not show the date on which the file was sent to the Appellate Chamber. The Appellate Chamber only returned the case file to the first instance court on July 27, 2005, and (v) from October 23, 2008, to August 5, 2009, there was a period of 66