10. On October 8, 2004, the petitioner submitted his observations in response to the information provided by the State, which was transmitted to the State in a message dated December 7, 2004, along with a one-month deadline to submit any additional observations. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioner 11. According to the petition, Mr. Victorio Spoltore filed a labor complaint on June 30, 1988 against the company Cacique Camping S.A. for occupational sickness. He argued that in his day-to-day work, his health had been damaged, causing him to retire at 70% disability. Mr. Spoltore was claiming compensation for inability to work and for moral prejudice. 12. The petitioner states that he had opened the labor complaint before Labor Tribunal No. 3 of the San Isidro Judicial Circuit under the heading “Spoltore, Victorio v. Cacique Camping S.A., occupational disease, File 12,515. 13. The petitioner alleges that on June 3, 1997, nine years after he had filed his complaint, a judgment was entered in the file denying that the company Cacique Camping S.A. was responsible for damages to his health. The petitioner adds that Labor Tribunal No. 3 conducted the proceedings negligently and in violation of his human rights because it did not respect the principle of reasonable time. In this regard, he points out various moments in which the Tribunal allegedly delayed the proceedings. He indicates that it took five years and five months from the time the evidentiary phase opened through the last public hearing; more than two years lapsed between the first hearing and the last one; and more than two years also lapsed between the first summons to the expert’s office and the presentation of the psychological report. 14. The petitioner alleges that according to the legislation governing labor tribunals, it is the obligation of such tribunals to organize the steps needed for the case to go forward. He affirms that it is essential for the State to be proactive in moving the proceedings forward in labor trials. 15. The petitioner indicates that on September 2, 1997, to challenge the judgment of the first instance, he lodged a recurso de inaplicabilidad and a recurso de nulidad before the Supreme Court of Justice of Buenos Aires, both of which were rejected on August 16, 2000, that is, three years after he had filed them.