petitioner’s attorney withdrew his request for their issuance. Consequently, in view of “the irrefutable evidence that said elements belonged to the Army” the petitioner stated that the action was “being brought against the Ministry of Defense and/or whoever proves to be responsible” for the accident (supra para. 84). 167. Having clarified these procedural steps, the Court notes that the information included in the initial petition and in the addendum to the petition regarding the determination of the defendant in the case, was sufficient to identify the State as the defendant, under the terms of Article 330 of the CPCCN. 309 Furthermore, the Court confirms that in the addendum to the petition the alleged victim requested as a “preliminary measure” and “without detriment” to bringing the suit against the Ministry of Defense, for an official communication to be sent to the Property Registry to determine ownership of the property. Based on this request the judge asked for clarification, and therefore on March 13, 1991 the petitioner clarified that he was bringing the suit against the Ministry of Defense. This information was reiterated on several occasions (supra para. 82), while the judge sent letters to different state entities such as the Cadastre Office. The party asked to withdraw its request for the informative evidence of February 22, 1996. In fact, this information was officially confirmed, at least in relation to plot 1, as it was determined that it belonged to the “Supreme Government of the Nation.” Accordingly, the Court considers that the information provided by the petitioner was consistent with that provided in the previous procedural stages and gave the judge elements to consider that the defendant had been duly identified and to serve notice of the suit, under the terms of Article 338 of the CPCCN.310 168. In this regard, the Court does not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the interested party caused such confusion that it was not possible to identify the owner of the property and therefore to justify the delay of 3 years, 11 months and 24 days before serving notice of the suit. C.3.2. Procedural activity of the alleged victim in the different stages of the proceedings 169. This Court reiterates that the State “in exercise of its judicial functions, has a legal obligation of its own, and therefore the conduct of the judicial authorities should not depend solely on the procedural activity of the petitioner in the proceedings.”311 170. The Court considers that from the analysis of the evidence provided by the parties it is clear that the procedural activity of Mr. Danilo Furlan, acting on behalf of his son, and subsequently of Sebastián Furlan, consisted of several procedural stages to move forward 309 Article 330 regulates the “Format of the claim,” and establishes that it “shall be presented in writing and contain: 1) The name and address of the applicant. 2) The name and address of the defendant. […]” Cf. Article 300 of the CPCCN, Law Article 330. 17.454/1967, text ordered by Decree 1042/1981 (file of appendices to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume VII, page 3154).Regarding this point, the State argued that “considering the situation in an abstract manner, the information contained in the initial petition would be sufficient, in principle, [to determine the defendant party to the proceedings].” Cf. Appendix to the closing arguments of the State of March 28, 2012 (file on Merits, Volume III, page 1298). 310 Cf. Article 338 CPCCN, Law 17.454/1967, text ordered by Decree 1042/1981. (“Having presented the application according to the established provisions, the judge shall give notice to the defendant to appear and provide his answer within fifteen days. When the defendant party is the State, a province or municipality, the term to appear and respond to the petition shall be sixty days”). Cf. file of appendices to the brief of pleadings and motions, volume VII, page 3154. 311 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 83, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 76. 55