absence of reasonableness in the time frame constitutes, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees. 282 Moreover, this Court has indicated that the “reasonable time” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings undertaken until the final judgment is handed down. 283 172. The Court has usually considered the following elements to determine whether the duration of the judicial proceedings is reasonable: (a) complexity of the matter; (b) procedural activity of the interested party; (c) conduct of the judicial authorities, 284 and (d) the impact on the legal situation of the individual involved in the proceeding. 285 However, in this case, the Court has verified that more than 15 years have passed since an action for damages was filed against Messrs. Mémoli on December 29, 1997, and, currently, the proceeding is still pending a decision in first instance (supra paras. 95, 96 and 108). This Court recognizes that the number of appeals attempted by the parties could have hampered the work of the judicial authorities hearing the case. However, the Court considers that the nature of the civil proceeding in this case does not entail legal or probative aspects or discussions that would suggest that it is per se complex. Indeed, according to article 320 of the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure of the province of Buenos Aires, “disputes relating to damages arising from offenses or quasi offenses […]” are processed by a summary hearing, and this was decided by the judge of the case on March 27, 2001. 286 In other words, the proceeding under which Messrs. Mémoli’s case is being processed is a simplified civil proceeding, so that, in principle, it has no special characteristic and requires no special procedure that would make it particularly complex. 173. Despite the foregoing, the Court underlines that the delays caused by the acts or omissions of either of the two parties must be taken into account when analyzing whether the proceeding has been conducted within a reasonable time. 287 In this regard, the State’s main argument is that the delay in the civil proceeding is due to the number of judicial remedies filed by the parties to the proceeding. In this regard, this Court notes that, between the two parties, more than 30 remedies were filed 288 and agrees with the State that the remedies filed 282 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 152. 283 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 152. 284 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 153. 285 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155, and Case of García and family members v. Guatemala, supra, para. 153. 286 Cf. Decision of March 27, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2009). 287 Cf. ECHR, Zimmermann and Steiner v. Switzerland, no. 8737/79, 13 July 1983, § 24, Series A no. 66; H. v. the United Kingdom (Article 50), no. 9580/81, § 71 and 73, 8 July 1987, Series A no. 136-B; Vernillo v. France, no. 11889/85, § 34, 20 February 1991, Series A no. 198, and Stoidis v. Greece, no. 46407/99, § 19, 17 May 2001. 288 During the proceeding, the complainant has filed at least five remedies, including appeals for annulment and review with subsidiary appeal, of which at least one was repeated owing to the absence of a response. For their part, Messrs. Mémoli, among other actions, filed at least one objection of res judicata and of prescription of the civil action, three requests for prescription of the civil action, three requests for extinction of the action, two appeals for a declaration of nullity, seven challenges to the judges of the case, nine appeals including appeals for annulment and review with subsidiary appeal and one request for dismissal, of which at least one was rejected as time-barred, three were declared inadmissible and another considered inadmissible. In addition, on repeated occasions, both parties requested that the negligence of the opposite party be declared. Cf. Brief of February 19, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1823 to 1825); brief of March 24, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1884 to 1886); brief of August 3, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1909 and 1910); brief of October 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1687 to 1689); brief of June 8, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1958 to 1960); brief of March 17, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 64