by the parties to the civil action have contributed to making the proceeding more complex, and have had an impact on its prolonged duration. 289 174. Nevertheless, the Court emphasizes that the parties to this proceeding, who include the presumed victims in this case, were making use of appeals recognized by the applicable laws in order to defend their interests in the civil proceeding, which per se cannot be used against them. 290 The Court considers that the filing of appeals constitutes an objective factor that should not be attributed to the respondent State and that must be taken into account when determining whether the duration of the proceeding exceeded a reasonable time. 291 175. On the other hand, the case file before the Court does not reveal that the negligence of either of the two parties was established. 292 Moreover, on at least six occasions, Messrs. Mémoli requested the court to take action on some pending aspect 293 and, on three occasions, 1, folios 1937 to 1944); brief of February 10, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1813 to 1818); brief of August 3, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1912); brief of October 8, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1927 and 1928); brief of September 16, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1683); brief of April 3, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1891 to 1893); brief of March 4, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2148 and 2149); brief of April 3, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2481 and 2482); brief of April 24, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2494); brief of June 20, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2536); brief of August 11, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2542); brief of February 15, 2012 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1715); brief of August 22, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folios 491 to 493); brief of September 12, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folios 494 and 495); brief of April 25, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2047 to 2049); brief of May 23, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2069 and 2070); brief of May 28, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2072); brief requesting revocation of a decision (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2124); brief of September 16, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2217 and 2218); brief of November 6, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2685 and 2686); brief of November 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2701 to 2703); brief of March 23, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2722 to 2726); brief of September 30, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1685); brief of October 25, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2238 and 2239); decision of December 20, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2137); decision of October 6, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2219); decision of October 22, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2236); decision of July 27, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2245); decision of March 20, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2167 and 2168); brief of March 3, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2454); brief of June 12, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2621); brief of October 18, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2566); brief of December 1, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2582); brief of October 8, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folios 1654 and 1655), and brief of November 19, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1698). 289 In this regard, see ECHR, Stoidis v. Greece, no. 46407/99, § 18, 17 May 2001. 290 Mutatis mutandi, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 79. See also, ECHR, Kolomiyets v. Russia, no. 76835/01, § 29, 22 February 2007, and Eckle v. Germany, no. 8130/78, § 82, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51. 291 Cf. ECHR, Eckle v. Germany, no. 8130/78, § 82, 15 July 1982, Series A no. 51; Poiss v. Austria, no. 9816/82, § 57, 23 April 1987, Series A no. 117, and Wiesinger v. Austria, no. 11796/8, § 56, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 213. 292 On one occasion, the negligence of the presumed victims was decided, a decision that was subsequently annulled by the same judge. Cf. Decision of September 23, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1 folios 2663 and 2664), and decision of February 5, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2707). On another occasion, the presumed victims received a disciplinary admonition, but that was due to the obligation to observe proper decorum in their pleadings and there is no record that it had any impact on the duration of the proceeding. Cf. Decision of April 19, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2493); decision of February 5, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2707); brief of April 24, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2494); decision of April 24, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2495); brief of April 25, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2498), and decision of April 28, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2500). 293 Cf. Brief of April 27, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2255); brief of June 1, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2257); brief of November 30, 2007 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2614); brief of March 23, 2010 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 2722 to 2726); brief of July 65