75 upon the procedural acts of the victims or their next of kin or on the presentation of evidence by private interested parties, but as its own legal duty. Public authorities must act in furtherance of the truth-seeking function of the State.142 199. The delay in the proceedings was due to the conduct of judicial authorities only. On March 27, 2000, the Attorney General´s Office filed a criminal complaint against the alleged perpetrators, and after six years of the commencement of the action, no decision has been rendered by the trial court. The competent authorities have confined themselves to taking testimony. It has been established that the Third Chamber of the Trial Court in and for Sobral took over two years to hold the hearings aimed at taking testimony from witnesses and experts, and in some periods it has taken no steps whatsoever towards adjudicating the case ( supra para. 112(29)). In this regard, this Court deems inadmissible the State’s argument that the delay is due, among other things, to the large number of statements it has had to take, or to the fact that it has required additional courts to take the statements of witnesses who did not live in Sobral, or to the workload of the court hearing the case. 200. The State further alleged that the delay in the criminal proceeding was due to the fact that on September 22, 2003, the Attorney General´Office extended the accusation to two other persons. At this point it is worth noting that the Attorney General´s Office is an organ of the State, and thus its actions and omissions may affect its international liability. The Attorney General´s Office took more than three years to extend the charges against clinical director Francisco Ivo de Vasconcelos, and auxiliary nurse Elias Gomes-Coimbra, both from the Casa de Reposo Guararapes (Guararapes Rest Home), even though Mr. Ivo de Vasconcelos was the physician who took care of Mr. Ximenes-Lopes on the day of his death and Mr. Gomes-Coimbra was the nurse who had taken care of the alleged victim during his stay in the institution. On May 25, 2000, two months after commencement of criminal proceeding, the Center for the Operational Support of Socially Marginalized Groups of the Office of the State Attorney under the Attorney General’s Office informed the Prosecutor in the case of the death of Mr. Damião Ximenes-Lopes that, in view of the body of evidence collected, he should extend the charges, as “it [was] an institution and legal imposition.” The Court considers that the above-mentioned allegation of the State does not provide grounds to justify the delay in the criminal proceeding. 201. Finally, two years after the extension of the charges, no significant progress has been made in the case. 202. The Court points out that the State in its final arguments informed that “the preliminary investigation stage in the criminal case had been concluded, and that the judgment was due in the first months of 2006.” However, it has been proved with the evidence submitted to the Court by the parties, that the proceeding has been halted until an interlocutory decision is rendered concerning the request made by one of the initial defendants that the presentation of the final arguments be suspended, and therefore, the proceedinas are not ready for the judge to render a final judgment (supra para. 112(42)). 142 Cf. Case of Baldeón-García, supra note 4, para. 93; Case of Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 25, para. 144; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 79.