activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (iv) the adverse effect on the legal situation of the alleged victim. 51 The Court recalls that the State is responsible for justifying—based on the above indicated criteria—the time taken to deal with cases, and where it fails to do so, the Court has broad authority to conduct its own assessment. 52 47. In order to establish whether the guarantee of a reasonable period of time was violated in this case, the Court must first analyze the total duration of the proceedings. In this regard, it finds that the writ of amparo was filed on February 21, 1990, while the payout of what was due was made on March 4, 2011. This means the process had a total duration of more than 21 years. Article 43 of the National Constitution of the Argentine Republic states that "[e]very person may file an expeditious and swift writ of amparo—provided that there is no other more suitable judicial remedy—against any act or omission of public authorities or private individuals that actually or imminently infringes upon, restricts, violates, or threatens—in a clearly arbitrary or illegal way—the rights and guarantees recognized by this Constitution, by a treaty, or by a law [...]” (emphasis added). In spite of this, Mr. Boleso did not obtain a first final ruling until August 4, 1997—that is, seven years after the writ of amparo was filed— when the Superior Court of Justice rejected the Federal Extraordinary Appeal filed by the Province of Corrientes. In addition, five years elapsed between the filing of the Federal Extraordinary Appeal and the decision, during which time there is no evidence of procedural activity other than the requests to expedite filed by the alleged victim's attorney(supra para. 32). Additionally, the Court notes that more than two years elapsed between the time when Mr. Boleso opened the administrative case file for collecting what was owed and the time of payment, and that during that time, there is no evidence of procedural activity other than the requests to expedite filed by the alleged victim's attorney. 48. Second, with respect to elements that would allow for analysis of a violation of a reasonable period of time, as regards the complexity of the matter, the Court finds that the operational difficulties resulting from the requirement of appointing associate judges do not justify a delay of more than 21 years. The Court also notes that throughout the proceedings, there were periods of inactivity that were not justified by the State and during which Mr. Boleso presented several requests for expedited processing that were not granted(supra paras. 32 and 36). This has to do with the procedural activity of the interested party, which in this case was aimed at moving the proceedings forward. In this sense, there is no evidence that Mr. Boleso’s conduct was aimed at delaying the proceedings; on the contrary, the requests made demonstrate his interest in obtaining a prompt response. Regarding the conduct of judicial authorities, there is no evidence that it was intended to delay the process; however, it did not reflect an interest on the part of the administration of justice in resolving the matter in a swift and expeditious manner, as required by the Constitution. Lastly, the Court finds that the delay in the decision caused harm to Mr. Boleso’s net worth and affected his right to property, as will be analyzed in the following section(infra paras. 53 to 56). 49. Additionally, the Court does not have the information needed to analyze the representative’s arguments regarding the violation of the right to judicial guarantees in relation to the principles of suitability, jurisdiction, and judicial independence in connection with the appointment of the associate judge who ruled on the writ of amparo in the lower court, as well as in relation to the composition of the STJC when it issued decision 302 of 2000, nor with regard to the violation of the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds that 51 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78; and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 52 Cf. Case of Anzulado Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru, supra, para. 126. 13