and because it was a case involving "officials elected by the people "(supra para. 172). The Court finds that indeed the constitutionality challenge filed by Mr. López Mendoza on August 4, 2005, was joined into the record of Nidia Gutierrez de Asencio of April 4, the Court also notes that: i) on July 27, 2006.255 Moreover, 2006, Mr. Juan Bautista Carrero Marrero sought to intervene as a third party in the case ii) on November 7, 2007, joinder was ordered to join the case file with the claim of Mrs. Rosalba Gil Pacheco iii) on December 19, 2007, joinder was ordered to join the case file with the claim of Humberto Bello Bernay, iv) on June 4, 2008, joinder was ordered to join the case file with the claim of Mrs. Sandra Carolina Alfaro Salazar, and v ) on July 8, 2008, joinder was ordered to join the case file with the claim of Mrs. Maria Trinidad Ramirez Egañez. 256 176. Moreover, the Court considers that the fact that the motion filed by Mr. López Mendoza sought a declaration of unconstitutionality of an Article of a Law with general effects is a determining factor to characterize the cases complexity. ii. Procedural activity of the interested parties 177. The State indicated that the interested parties "met, in a timely manner, their procedural burdens throughout the procedural iter." In this regard, the Court finds that the record does not show that Mr. López Mendoza carried out activities that provoked undue delay in the processing of the case. Accordingly, the Court finds that if there was no delaying actions in the case provoked by the alleged victim. With regard to the subsequent claims and corresponding joinders, the Court has considered this in the previous section (supra para. 175). iii. Actions of the judicial authorities 178. The State limited itself to noting that the authorities maintained a diligent attitude regarding the handling of the case, "developing, at all times, much activity." (supra para. 172). From the evidence in the case file, the Court finds that in the course of that appeal, the Supreme Tribunal had to resolve, in parallel manner, the claims for precautionary protection of a constitutional right filed jointly with the constitutional challenges in addition to that of Mr. López Mendoza’s. As such, the Court also notes that the Constitutional Chamber issued the corresponding placement cards; made a series of notifications to the people involved in the case, and convened and conducted the public hearing. 257 Moreover, the Court notes that Article 19 of the Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal does not set a specific period for which it is subject to rule on the constitutionality challenges brought before it (supra para. 165). 255 Cf. Judgment No. 912 of August 6, 2008, of the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, supra note 111, folios 502 to 535. 256 Description of Case file No. 2006-945 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice: Petiton for annulment for unconstitutionality of Article 105 of the Organic Law of the Comptroller General of the Republic and the National System of Fiscal Oversight, as well as the Resolutions in virtue of the disqualification fromt he excercise of public office. Petitioner: Leopoldo López, Eva Ramos, et al. Joined to the case file 2006-494, petitioner Nidia de Atencio (Case file of annexes to the application, tome III, folios 1320 to 1324). 257 Description of Case file No. 2006-945 of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice supra note 256, folios 1320 to 1324. 68