subject to unjustified delay. The State maintains that the petitioners should have interposed and exhausted an extraordinary federal appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. The State argues that, had the petitioner considered the sentence at second instance arbitrary, and thus raising a sufficient federal question, this remedy was available and effective. 37. Claims such as those raised by the petitioner to the effect that domestic remedies are inadequate because of delay are evaluated on a case by case basis according to the circumstances. 4 The record before the Commission indicates that the petitioner exhausted the ordinary remedies of the legal system, namely a civil claim and appeal, prior to filing his petition. That civil claim, filed on Sebastian Furlan’s behalf in 1990, was decided at first instance in 2000. Pursuant to appeals filed by both parties, the decision was confirmed in its substantive aspects later that same year. At the time the Commission initiated processing of petition 531/01 in December of 2002, the petitioner had not yet been able to obtain the execution of the judgment. The sentence was executed in March of 2003. Consequently, the Commission takes into account that approximately 13 years elapsed between the filing of the judicial action and the execution of the resulting judgment. The Commission observes that the sentences of first and second instance reflect that this was not a complex proceeding, and apart from asserting that there was no undue delay, the State has provided no information concerning the duration of the proceedings. 38. An assessment of delay in the resolution of domestic remedies must also take into account the purpose of the judicial action. In this regard, the Commission takes due note that the proceedings were initiated to seek compensation for severe and permanent injuries. The Commission also takes note that the petitioner considers that the duration of the proceedings was particularly prejudicial to the rights of his son because that compensation was necessary to provide care, treatment and therapy. The petitioner argues that Sebastian’s chances for a better recovery were irreversibly diminished by the fact that the family could not obtain the compensation necessary to seek better treatment in a timely way. 5 39. The Commission also takes note that the appeal the State argues as having been necessary is an extraordinary remedy. This exercise of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court is exceptional and discretionary. 6 Full exhaustion of the remedy may require two procedures. An extraordinary appeal is first filed before the court whose sentence is being challenged. If that court admits the appeal, the Supreme Court then reviews whether it finds the grounds for jurisdiction satisfied. Alternatively, if the court whose decision is being challenged rejects the appeal, it may then be filed directly before the Supreme Court itself, which will review its admissibility. The applicable legislation provides no time limits for the issuance of these decisions. 40. In light of the foregoing analysis, the Commission finds that the petitioner invoked and exhausted the ordinary remedies provided within the State’s legal system, and that the State was consequently placed on full notice of the claims that gave rise to the present petition. While the matter was not particularly complex, thirteen years elapsed between the filing of the claim and the execution of the judgment. Considering the duration of the ordinary proceedings and that their objective was to compensate severe injuries and pay for treatment, and given that the remedy the State invokes as necessary is subject to discretion as to its exercise and duration, it would not be reasonable to have required the petitioner to exhaust an extraordinary appeal as a condition of admissibility. As the Inter-American Court has indicated: “The rule of prior exhaustion 4 See, inter alia, IACHR, Report Nº 10/05, Petition 380/03, Admissibility, Rafael Ignacio Cuesta Caputi, Ecuador, February 23, 2005, para. 48. 5 The petitioner affirms that it was he and the family who, in great measure, cared for Sebastian and helped him re-learn, to the extent they were able, such basic functions as walking and talking, because they lacked the resources to seek the specialized rehabilitation he needed. 6 Article 14 of Law 48 confers jurisdiction, in pertinent part, where a federal question is presented, including on the basis that the sentence being challenged is arbitrary. Pursuant to Article 280 of Law 23.174, the Supreme Court is competent to exercise its discretion to reject in limine any claim which it considers does not present a question sufficient to require the exercise of federal jurisdiction. 7