163. The State referred to other events that occurred during the “second stage of the process,” which allegedly delayed it and that “are attributable to the attorneys of the Furlan [family].” It indicated that: i) the attorney took over 3 months to serve notice of the petition”; ii) the settlement hearing “was suspended at the request of Furlan,” so that a new date had to be set for May 8, 1997, and iii) Furlan’s attorney took until “February 12, 1998 to request the appointment of expert witnesses,” something that could have been done on December 18, 1997. Finally, the State argued that since “a lawsuit was filed against the State […]in the sphere of private law for its possible responsibility for matters that are outside its scope as a legal entity of a public nature,” this implied that it was not processed “in the federal administrative sphere,” but in the “civil and federal commercial sphere,” which means that “the parties are the ones that decide to file a complaint, promote the proceedings, submit evidence, determine the purpose of the application […] and/or perform any other action contemplated in the procedural laws.” Considerations of the Court 164. The Court notes that the debate concerning the actions of the interested party focuses on two aspects: i) the time taken to specify the defendant, and ii) the procedural activity undertaken by the alleged victim in the different stages of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court will analyze these situations separately. C.3.1. Determination of the defendant 165. In relation to the first dispute, the Court observes the following procedural actions: i) the complaint brought on June 18, 1990 by Danilo Furlan was filed “against the National State”;306 ii) the addendum to the petition filed on April 16, 1991 indicated that the complaint filed previously was “against the National State” and that the place where the accident occurred “was located in the Air Defense Artillery Group.”307 In addition, it indicated that “the National State [was] responsible given that it was the owner of the property and of the elements found therein, belonging to the National Army,” 308 and iii) on November 14, 1991 the judge asked the petitioner to state against whom the complaint was being brought, and on March 13, 1992, whereupon the petitioner’s attorney responded that “it was being brought against the Ministry of National Defense” and, “without prejudice to the foregoing, and as a preliminary measure” asked for an official letter to be issued to the Property Registry in order to determine the ownership of the premises where the accident occurred, on the date thereof (supra para. 82). 166. In addition, the Court finds that as of March 18, 1992, the date on which the order was issued for the first time to the Property Registry (supra para. 82), various steps were taken to determine the ownership of the property. During these proceedings the Cadastre Department reported that it was not possible to provide the information requested regarding plot 1, and that in relation to plot 2 it belonged to the “Supreme Government of the Nation” (supra para. 83). All these steps to determine the ownership of the property were completed on February 22, 1996, the date on which the petitioner requested the judge to serve notice of the suit, and indicated that “in light of the negative outcome of the letters” and “taking into account that the suit is being brought against the occupant of the property and owner of the elements that gave rise to the accident” of Sebastián Furlan, the 306 Cf. Civil suit for damages filed by Danilo Pedro Furlan on December 18, 1990, page 93. 307 Cf. Amendment of the petition of April 16, 1991, page 109. 308 Amendment of the petition of April 16, 1991, page 111. 54