22 u. Mr. Cantos and his attorneys incurred expenses and costs in pursuing the various domestic and international proceedings.94 VII VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 8 AND 25 (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION) IN RELATION TO THE ARTICLE 1(1) OBLIGATION THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT The Commission’s arguments 44. With regard to the violations of Articles 8, 25 and 1(1) of the Convention, the Commission argued that on July 4, 1986, Mr. Cantos filed a complaint with the Supreme Court for “payment of amounts owed.” The respondents were the Province of Santiago del Estero and the Argentine State. Mr. Cantos’ suit was seeking acknowledgment of amounts owed to him under an agreement signed in 1982. This legal action ended with a judgment that “rejected the complaint and ordered payment of costs on September 3, 1996.” The Commission argues the following with regard to the proceedings conducted in the suit seeking collection of amounts owed: a. From the standpoint of a “global analysis of the procedure” in the administrative and court proceedings, taken together the latter constituted a violation of the reasonable time principle (Article 8 of the American Convention). The judicial proceedings started with a suit brought by Mr. José María Cantos in 1986 and ended in September 1996 with a Supreme Court ruling dismissing the suit. By the standards set in the case law of the InterAmerican Court, this constitutes an unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment for the following reasons: The complexity of the case. Given the complexity of the case and because of the number of experts called, almost ten years was spent compiling the body of evidence. However, in its ruling the Supreme Court confined itself to stating that the “suit is time-barred and, therefore, denied.” It did not examine the large body of evidence. The respondents entered objections two months after the suit was brought (September 1986) having to do with the admissibility of the suit, namely: lack of active and passive legitimation and time-barring. But “in an attempt at procedural economy,” the Supreme Court failed to comply with its duty to “immediately serve notice that the prerequisite has not been met”; Procedural activity of the plaintiff. “The fact that a postponement occurred during the proceedings so that the Treasury Solicitor might attempt an out-of-court settlement did not relieve the Argentine court of its obligation to ensure compliance with the Convention’s requirements in the matter of the principle of reasonable time. The rejoinder added that Mr. Cantos worked strenuously and 94 Declaration given by Mr. José María Cantos before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, June 17, 2002.