proceedings. These include the complexity of the evidence, 300 the number of procedural subjects301 or the number of victims,302 the time elapsed since the violation,303 the characteristics of the remedies enshrined in the domestic body of law,304 and the context in which the violation occurred.305 157. First, with regard to the characteristics or nature of the proceedings under consideration, the Court does not find evidence in the domestic laws of Argentina that would suggest that regular civil proceedings are complex per se. In particular, a regular judicial process is governed by Article 319 of the National Civil Procedural and Commercial Code (hereinafter “CPCCN”), which establishes the following: “General principle: all judicial disputes that have no special processing indicated shall be discussed in a regular trial, except when this Code authorizes the judge to determine the type of proceedings applicable.” This means that the proceedings under which the case of Sebastián Furlan was processed is the regular process in the civil sphere, hence in principle it does not have a special process or nature. 158. Secondly, with regard to the number of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the Court observes that in this specific case, in order to comply with the purpose of the judicial proceedings, the court had to determine the damages caused to a single person, specifically, Sebastián Furlan. With regard to the complexity of the evidence that needed to be produced in the civil proceedings, the Court notes that, in general, proceedings on extracontractual liability tend to be more straightforward, considering that the main area of discussion is demonstrating the causal link between the damages and the acts of the State, a matter which required evidence certifying the ownership of the premises where the accident occurred, and the state of neglect of those premises. Lastly, the Court notes that the civil suit for damages was presented approximately one year and eleven months after the accident occurred; thus, the amount of time that had elapsed between the event and the filing of the judicial action was not significant. 159. Consequently, and bearing in mind the preceding points, the Court considers that the case did not involve legal or evidentiary aspects or debates that would involve a degree of complexity requiring almost 12 years to respond to. Therefore, the delay in the development and execution of the civil suit for damages in the instant case cannot be justified based on the complexity of the matter. 300 Cf. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, para. 78, and Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 157. 301 Cf. inter alia, Case of Acosta Calderón v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 106, and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 14, para. 133. 302 Cf. inter alia, Case of Baldeón García v. Peru. para.152, Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 103, and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, para. 113. 303 Cf. inter alia, Case of Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 12, 2008. Series C No. 186, para. 150, and Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 245. 304 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83. 305 Cf. inter alia, Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 184, Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 293, and Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, para. 156. 52