approximately one year and 11 months, the State has not justified how the petitioner’s actions ended up by delaying the proceedings for another ten years. 175. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds no evidence to suggest that the petitioner’s actions in the proceedings were dilatory or could have substantially contributed to a process of this nature taking this long to be resolved; therefore the delay in the proceedings cannot be attributed to the plaintiff’s alleged lack of initiative. C.4. Conduct of the authorities Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 176. The Commission claimed that “the conduct by the State authorities in the domestic proceedings […] was not diligent” and that the State “not only failed in its duty to move the proceedings forward,” but also “incurred in delaying actions” as the defendant party. It added that the State did not take into account either that the proceedings “involved a child with a disability, or later, an adult with a disability.” Finally, the Commission emphasized that this case does not involve “a civil suit between private parties” and that “suits in which one of the parties is the State can have particular characteristics.” 177. The representatives pointed out that the behavior displayed by the judge in the case “caused excessive delays in the proceedings” and he failed to comply “with the obligations demanded by the vulnerable condition of Sebastián Furlan.” They added that the General Staff of the Army “adopted a dilatory attitude by filing an objection based on the statute of limitations which was clearly inadmissible,” and “failed to adequately convey the request that would have allowed for a settlement.” In addition, they claimed alleged negligence by the Property Registry, the Cadastre Office and the City of Buenos Aires Health Secretariat. 178. The State argued that because the case was processed “in the Federal Civil and Commercial courts,” based on the “principle of initiative” it cannot be argued that the judge in charge of the proceedings “had the obligation to promote a case against this instance, which is not recognized in respect of its activity as a legal entity of a public nature.” Considerations of the Court 179. The Court notes that the arguments of the parties with regard to this matter focus on: i) the actions of the judicial authorities in this process, and ii) the actions of the State authorities as the defendant party. C.4.1) Conduct of the judicial authorities in the process 180. Articles 34 and 36 of the CPCCN establish the judge’s procedural authority. In accordance with this law, the judge has the duty to direct the proceedings, ensuring the equality of the parties in the proceedings, monitoring that the processing of the case is consistent with the principle of judicial economy, 314 and preventing the paralysis of the 314 Article 34 section 5 of the CPCCN establishes that the judge has the duty to: “[d]irect the proceedings, and shall, within the limits expressly established in this Code: a) [c]oncentrate, to the extent possible, within a single action or hearing all steps necessary; b) [i]ndicate, before processing any petition, the defects or omissions thereof, ordering their correction within an established term, and order ex officio all steps necessary to prevent annulments; c) [m]aintain equality between the parties to the proceedings; d) [p]revent and punish all acts contrary to the duty of loyalty, honesty and good faith; e) [e]nsure that in the processing of the case the greatest judicial economy is sought.” Cf. Article 34 of the CPCCN, Law 17.454/1967, text ordered by Decree 1042/1981 (file of appendices to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume VII, page 3154). 57