19. He emphasizes that this compensation was supposed to remedy damages for the past and well as compensate for the consequences in the present and future. The petitioner reiterates in his communications his concern, given the alleged insufficiency of the compensation, and that Sebastian is unable to hold a regular job, with respect to how his son will live once he is unable to provide the necessary support. In many of his communications the petitioner presents information as to awards of compensation in other cases providing higher awards for situations he considers to be less significant, and he argues that the award in the case of his son was grossly disproportionate. 20. Sebastian’s father maintains that the State bears responsibility for what happened to Sebastian, not only because it was State negligence that caused the accident, but also because the excessive delay in the judicial proceedings and in the execution of the judgment deprived his son of the means necessary for a better recuperation. 21. Sebastian’s father indicates that the consequences of the situation have been disastrous for Sebastian and for the members of the family. His father reports that the fact that Sebastian has the appearance of man, but the cognitive capacity of an adolescent continuously places him in difficulties and at risk. He reports, for example, that the gap between his appearance and cognitive capacity means his actions are often misunderstand, and have lead to him being harassed, getting into fights, and even being detained by police due to such misunderstandings. Medical and police reports filed by the petitioner indicate that Sebastian was the victim of attack and attempted robbery on March 1, 2003 which left him with a serious puncture wound to the lung. 22. The petitioner indicates that Sebastian is aware of the difference in his life before and after the accident, and between his situation and that of other people his age, and that this is a source of tremendous anguish. The petition recounts, without details, that Sebastian was committed to an institute for three months, in unacceptable conditions, in restraints and under heavy medication. The petitioner indicates that Sebastian has harmed himself on at least two occasions in what are described as suicide attempts. The petition recounts that the situation since the accident has been traumatic for Sebastian’s immediate family as well, and led to the disintegration of his parents’ marriage and psychological problems for both the parents and two siblings. In addition to the claims raised by the petitioner relative to the judicial process, he requested at various points in the processing before the Commission that the State provide Sebastian and the family with psychological attention, and provide Sebastian with a pension. B. Position of the State 23. The State’s presentations coincide with those of the petitioner as to the principal facts reported with respect to the accident, the severe injuries sustained by Sebastian Furlan, and the objective responsibility that was determined by the judiciary. The State notes that the judicial determination as to the division of responsibility between the plaintiff and the State was derived from the internal normative framework in which the general criterion is the capacity to foresee risk. The State affirms its view that this shared responsibility was appropriate, given that the 14year old Sebastian was aware of the risk of using unknown equipment in an abandoned area, and that an evaluation of the legal responsibility of the presumed victim was necessary. 24. The State considers that the presumed victim had access, through the proceedings instituted by his father, to two instances of judicial review. The judicial process in question in fact produced a sentence in Sebastian’s favor. The State maintains that the courts acted with full observance of the guarantees of due process, and that there was no undue delay in the process. 4