44. However, even if a case is deemed complex for one or more of those reasons, it is not enough to offer a generic argument about the complexity of proceedings of that kind; instead, arguments must be developed and evidence presented that demonstrate that this factor impacted the duration of the case. 37 Similarly, the Commission has ruled that even in cases that could be deemed complex by their very nature, the State involved must specifically argue the reasons why that complexity affected the investigations in question. 38 45. As regards the second element—that is, the actions of the judicial authorities—the Court has determined that judges, who are in charge of directing the proceedings, have the duty to direct and channel the judicial process with the aim of not sacrificing justice and due legal process in favor of considerations of form.39 The Court has issued similar rulings in cases involving civil proceedings. 40 Also regarding civil disputes, the European Court has determined that it is incumbent on states parties to organize their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee the rights of all persons to secure a final decision within a reasonable time in disputes involving civil rights and obligations. 41 46. In connection with the third aspect—that is, the procedural activity of the interested party— in past cases the Court has evaluated whether the participants at trial performed the procedural interventions that could reasonably have been required of them. 42 47. On this point, the European Court has stated that even in legal systems that observe the principle that procedural impetus is the responsibility of the parties, the participants’ actions do not absolve the courts of their obligation to ensure a swift trial.43 Similarly, the European Court has ruled that this same standard applies in situations in which expert assistance is necessary. In such circumstances, the onus of preparing the case and discharging the proceedings swiftly lies with the judicial authority. 44 48. The European Court has ruled that although certain delays could pose no problem in and of themselves, when analyzed together and cumulatively they could mean that a reasonable time was exceeded. 45 Likewise, it has established that a delay in one particular phase could be permissible, provided that the total duration of the proceedings is not excessive. 46 It has also said that it must be borne in mind that the State is responsible for all its authorities: not only its judicial agencies, but all public institutions. 47 49. Regarding the fourth element—that is, the general impact on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings—the Court has ruled that authorities must act with greater diligence in those cases in which the duration of the proceedings affects the protection of other rights of the participants at trial.48 Thus, the Inter-American Court has ruled that in cases involving vulnerable people—for instance, persons with disabilities—the pertinent measures must be adopted. These could include prioritizing the attention paid to the case and its resolution by the authorities responsible, in order to avoid delays in its processing, thereby 37 I/A Court H. R. Case of Andrade Salmón v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of December 1, 2016. Series C No. 330, para. 159. 38 IACHR. Report No. 3/16. Case 12.916. Merits. Nitza Paola Alvarado Espinoza, Rocío Irene Alvarado Reyes, José Angel Alvarado Herrera, and others. Mexico. April 13, 2016, para. 273. 39 I/A Court H. R. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 211; and Case of García Ibarra et al. v. Ecuador, para. 132. 40 I/A Court H. R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 169; I/A Court H. R. Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, paras. 171 and 176. 41 European Court of Human Rights, Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC] Judgment of 29 March 2006, Application No. 36813/97, § 183. 42 I/A Court H. R. Case of Forneron and Daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 69. 43 European Court of Human Rights. Pafitis and Others v. Greece. Judgment of 26 February 1998. Application No. 163/1996/782/983, § 93; European Court of Human Rights, Tierce v. San Marino. Judgment 17 June 2003. Application No. 69700/01, § 31; European Court of Human Rights. Sü rmeli v. Germany [GC]. Judgment of 8 June 2006, § 129. 44 European Court of Human Rights. Capuano v. Italy. Judgment of 25 June 1987. Application No. 9381/81, §§ 30-31; European Court of Human Rights. Versini v. France. Judgment of 10 July 2001. Application No. 40096/98, § 29; European Court of Human Rights. Sü rmeli v. Germany [GC]. Judgment of 8 June 2006, § 129. 45 European Court of Human Rights. Deumeland v. Germany. Judgment of 29 May 1986. Application No. 9384/81, § 90. 46 European Court of Human Rights. Pretto and Others v. Italy. Judgment of 8 December 1983. Application No. 7984/77, § 37. 47 European Court of Human Rights. Martins Moreira v. Portugal [GC]. Judgment of 11 July 2017. Application No. 19867/12, § 60. 48 I/A Court H. R. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 155; and Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina, para. 202. 8