24 lawfulness of said declaration. Due to the fact that these remedies are still pending resolution, the Court shall examine whether the State has complied with the reasonable time and whether the remedies were effective in order to protect the rights of the alleged victim. 78. For the sake of analyzing the reasonable time, the Court shall examine whether the proceedings adjusted to the following criteria: a) complexity of the case, b) procedural activities carried out by the interested party, and c) behavior of judicial authorities.75 79. To such regard, the representatives stated that there is complexity in the proceedings initiated as a consequence of the subjective or full jurisdiction remedies, since such remedies deal with essentially legal issues and have a minimum evidentiary burden. 80. On May 11, 1994, Salvador Chiriboga siblings filed a claim for a subjective remedy, which is in process before the First Chamber of the Court on Administrative matters in and for the city of Quito, case file nº 1016. Such remedy was lodged in order to annul the declaration of public utility,76 based on procedural errors, such as lack of service of notice of the declaration of public utility and discrimination. On December 4, 1995 the First Chamber of the Court defined the complaint.77 As from July 5, 2002, María Salvador Chiriboga has been submitting several briefs requesting a final judgment,78 which has still not happened. 81. On December 17, 1997, Salvador Chiriboga siblings also filed a claim for a subjective remedy, which is in process before the Second Chamber of the Court on Administrative matters in and for the city of Quito, case file Nº 4431. Said remedy was lodged in order to declare the Ministerial Agreement Nº 417,79 issued on December 18, 1997, to be illegal (supra para. 3). On January 14, 1999, after the claim was defined and answered,80 the Second Chamber of the Court ordered discovery.81 Once discovery was over, on May 13, 1999, María Salvador Chiriboga requested the proceedings to be set for trial,82 which was admitted by the Second Chamber of the Court on June 1, 1999.83 75 Cf. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Perú. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C N°. 137, para. 166; Case of Acosta Calderón, supra note 51, para. 105; Case of the Serrano-Cruz Sisters. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C N°. 120, para. 67 and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 51, para. 132. 76 Cf. Claim for a Subjective Remedy Nº 1016 (case file Nº 1016, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendix 4 and 5, p. 1468 to 1477). 77 Cf. Court order defining the complaint of December 4, 1995 (case file N° 1016, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 4 and 5, p. 1502). 78 Cf. Brief of July 22, 2002; brief of October 13, 2003; brief of January 11, 2005; brief of February 4, 2005 and brief of May 5, 2006 (case file Nº 1016, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 4 and 5, p. 1769 and 1778 to 1784). 79 Cf. Subjective remedy filed with Second Chamber of the Court on Administrative matters in and for the city of Quito of December 17, 1997 (case file Nº 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1314 to 1319). 80 Cf. answer to the complaint filed by the Ministry of Government on February 26, 1998 (case file Nº 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1338 to 1339). 81 Cf. court order issued by the Second Chamber of the Court on Administrative matters in and for the city of Quito on January 14, 1999 (case file Nº 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1364). 82 Cf. brief of May 13, 1999 of the representatives of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga (case file Nº 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1431). 83 Cf. court order of June 1, 1999 issued by the Second Chamber of the Court on Administrative matters in and for the city of Quito (case file Nº 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1431 and 1432).