for the Labor Tribunal to reach its decision in the case, nor is it apparent in light of the evidence appraised. Moreover, although the State spoke of the reasons why the hearings were postponed in order to claim that it could not be held responsible for all the deferrals, it failed to explain why, following those deferrals, new dates several months later were set, which meant that lengthy periods passed between one hearing and the next. Thus, for example, between the fourth and fifth hearing, five months went by. 62. Following the Labor Tribunal’s judgment, Mr. Spoltore filed special remedies (an appeal for reversal and a motion to vacate) on September 2, 1997; these were resolved almost three years later, on August 16, 2000. The State provided no adequate explanation for the delay of almost three years in resolving two remedies that, by their very nature and as stated by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires itself, were merely intended to examine the grounds for admissibility, an essentially legal matter that, as such, did not entail evidentiary formalities or additional findings of fact. 63. The foregoing paragraphs indicate that at the different stages of the process—between the filing of the suit and the summoning of all the trial’s participants, the evidentiary phase, the hearings, and the appeals lodged against the Labor Tribunal’s judgment—there were numerous delays that, through their repeated occurrence and cumulative effect, led to the case having an excessive duration of more than 12 years. The disciplinary proceedings brought by Mr. Spoltore confirmed at least two of the delays described in this section. Besides the fact that the judicial authorities hearing the case were involved in the aforementioned delays, the IACHR notes that although the State determined that some of them were not its fault but due to the activity of the respondent company, the case file indicates no specific measures adopted by either the Labor Tribunal or the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Buenos Aires to avoid possible dilatory actions in the proceedings. 64. Consequently, the Commission believes that the description of the judicial authorities’ actions indicates that the delays were the fault of the State and that, in connection with those that the participants at trial were able to affect, the judicial authorities adopted no measures to avoid such procedural behavior as they were required to do, according to the cited standards, in their role as the director of the process. 2.3 Actions of the interested party 65. In connection with the actions of Mr. Spoltore as the interested party, the State indicates that many of the evidentiary formalities were requested by him. It claims that Mr. Spoltore failed to press his case and that he could have filed motions requesting the resolution of the delays. 66. The Commission notes that nothing in the case file indicates that Mr. Spoltore engaged in actions that could have created delays or obstructions in the proceedings. On the contrary, as the State has acknowledged, Mr. Spoltore requested evidentiary formalities in the exercise of his rights as the plaintiff in order to establish the harm for which he was seeking compensation. Those actions by Mr. Spoltore cannot be argued as reasons for the delays in the proceedings. In addition, and in spite of the fact that it was incumbent on the judicial authorities to direct the proceedings, Mr. Spoltore complained on at least one occasion about the delays that had arisen. 67. In light of the foregoing, there is no evidence to indicate that Mr. Spoltore’s actions had any impact on the delays in the trial. 2.4 Nature of the interests at play 68. The Commission believes that a delay of more than 12 years in a judicial proceeding, in the circumstances described in the preceding sections, is in excess of the amount of time that can be considered reasonable. Regardless of the foregoing, the Commission believes it is appropriate to note that in the case at hand, there was even less justification for the delays given that, pursuant to the cited precedents, the case involved at least two elements that required the judicial authorities to act with particular dispatch: first, Mr. Spoltore’s disability, which was acknowledged by the Argentine authorities when they granted him his 11