43 therefore, under the circumstances, that could qualify as abandoned proceedings, as held by the Chamber in various decisions.”174 152. The representative held that the amparo should “have been decided without delay within three days following submission.” 153. The Commission indicated that “the victims filed no arguments regarding the decision [… that] declared the stage closed due to abandonment of proceedings” and that “in view of the insufficiency of charges and evidence, [the Commission] refrained from issuing a supported opinion on the efficacy and adequacy of the action.” 154. The State made no reference to this action. Notwithstanding, the State filed a statement related to “the duration of judicial proceedings before the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the [STJ].” In that statement, the State indicates “that constitutional protection actions[…] are the issues requiring the most time and attention from the Chamber” and that “by the end of 2006 and 2007, [the Chamber] held special sessions in order to reduce judicial workload […] and attempt to come up to date.”175 Furthermore, the statement indicates that “there are no strict rules as to the duration of amparo-related proceedings,” given “the multiple aspects inherent thereto such as the subject matter, prior claims, main parties, interested third parties, evidence, reports, public order, etc.”176 Lastly, the statement establishes that “the burden to further proceedings that lay on claimants was not complied with, thus resulting in disregard of proceeding,” though “[t]his type of decision in no manner prevented claimants from filing the constitutional amparo again, since no prejudgment was made on the merits of the controversy.” The Court notes that the State did not provide sufficient argumentative support as to the elements of that statement that would allow the analysis of the alleged noncompliance with the burden of furthering proceedings, supposedly falling on the victims, and the time elapsed to solve the recourse for constitutional amparo, so that the Court could appraise such statement based on sound judgment principles and in consistency with the remaining evidence.177 155. The recourse for constitutional amparo is regulated under the Organic Law on the Protection of Constitutional Rights and Guarantees of 1988. The following provisions of this law apply to the instant case: Section 14.- The amparo and any substantial or accessory aspect related thereto, until the enforcement of the appropriate judicial order, is undoubtedly of public order nature. […] Section 22.- The Court addressing the petition for a constitutional amparo will be empowered to redress the affected legal situation without satisfying any formal requirements and any prior summary investigation. Should that be the case, the writ of amparo shall be based on and supported by evidence indicating a serious presumption of actual or potential violation. Section 23.- If the Court decides not to immediately redress the affected legal situation as described above, the Court shall order the authority, entity, social institution or individuals accused of actual or potential violation of constitutional rights or guarantees to, within a 174 Cf. judgment No. 1186 of June 21, 2004, rendered by the Chamber for Constitutional Matters of the STJ, supra note 173, p. 4964. 175 Cf. declaration before a public notary (affidavit) by Mr. José Leonardo Requena Cabello on January 10, 2008 (File on the Merits, Book III, pp. 798 and 803). 176 Cf. affidavit of Mr. Requena Cabello, supra note 175, p. 800. 177 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez, supra note 83, para. 230.