III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioner 7. The petitioner stated that on June 30, 1988, he filed a labor complaint for occupational sickness against the company Cacique Camping S.A. He argued that because of his day-to-day work, his health had been damaged, forcing him to retire with a 70% disability. He also claimed compensation for inability to work and for pain and suffering. 8. The petitioner indicated that on June 3, 1997, nine years after filing his complaint, the Labor Tribunal issued judgment, finding no responsibility for his deteriorating health on the part of the company Cacique Camping S.A. He added that the Labor Tribunal discharged the proceedings negligently, in violation of his human rights, and after an unreasonable amount of time. On this point, he spoke of different occasions on which the Labor Tribunal delayed the proceedings. 9. He also indicated that on September 2, 1997, he filed an appeal for reversal and a motion to vacate against the first-instance judgment, both of which were dismissed by the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires on August 16, 2000—that is, three years after they were filed, concluding the proceedings 12 years after the filing of his original suit. 10. The petitioner further contended that on September 16, 1997, he appeared before the office of the Inspector General of the Buenos Aires Supreme Court to report the Labor Tribunal’s delay and negligence in the process. He said that the file was before the Supreme Court for resolution for almost two years and, in its judgment of April 16, 1999, it had found that although there had been a delay, the appropriate course of action was a reprimand for the clerk of the court involved for the delay in referring the proceedings to expert advice and for the delay in preparing and signing the deeds of notification. 11. The petitioner contended that under the laws that govern them, labor tribunals must order, on an ex officio basis, such measures as are appropriate for processing the case. He added that the impetus of the State is essential in labor-related proceedings. 12. The petitioner noted that Article 12 of Law No. 7718, which applied to his labor proceedings, provided that: “(…) the court shall order, on an ex officio basis, such measures as are appropriate for development of the proceedings. In addition, it may order the performance of any formality necessary to prevent vacation.” He noted that labor proceedings are special and are grounded in the protection afforded by Article 14 of the Argentine Constitution, and so they are to be given impetus on an ex officio basis. 13. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner contended that the State violated his right to prompt recourse and to judicial protection, as provided for in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. B. Position of the State 14. The State indicated that on September 1, 1963, Mr. Victorio Spoltore began work as an employee of the company Cacique Camping S.A. and that, in May 1987, his employment there ended. The State further noted that during that time, he held various positions. The State reported that in 1984, Mr. Spoltore developed a heart condition and, as of that point, his health began to suffer. 15. The State noted that Mr. Spoltore filed for retirement on the grounds of disability with the Welfare Office for Industry, Trade, and Civilian Activities. Mr. Spoltore was granted that benefit after a medical board ruling found that he had a 70% work disability. 16. The State added that on June 30, 1988, Mr. Spoltore filed suit for occupational sickness compensation against the company Cacique Camping S.A, which was heard by a Labor Tribunal. It reported that the petitioner claimed that his worsening health was due to the work he performed at the company’s industrial facility. The State reported that the Labor Tribunal issued judgment on June 3, 1997, dismissing his 2