25 However, since then, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga has submitted several briefs requesting the delivery of a final judgment,84 without obtaining any answer whatsoever. 82. The Court notes that Section 385 of the Administrative- Contentious Jurisdiction Act [Ley de la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa] determines that the subjective or full jurisdiction remedy aims at protecting the subjective right of a person who has been allegedly affected by an administrative act. In this sense, this Tribunal notices that, in light of such act, the processing of a subjective remedy should last between 27 and 37 working days,86 depending on whether the case file deals exclusively with questions of law and whether there is no need to take evidence. Furthermore, this Act provides that no interlocutory proceeding is allowed.87 83. With regard to the complexity of the subjective or full jurisdiction remedies filed by Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga, the Court notes that, in accordance with the legislation of Ecuador, the purpose of such remedies as well as their processes are designed to be simple and prompt recourses. Moreover, as is evidenced from the analysis of the evidence alleged by the parties, the procedural legal acts of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga were in accordance with the domestic legislation and that, on the contrary, she has insisted, on several occasions, on the resolution of the remedies filed with the courts. Furthermore, this Tribunal deems it is relevant to point out that the State, in its exercise of judicial function, holds a public duty, thus the behavior of the judicial authorities do not exclusively depend on the procedural effort of the plaintiff to the proceedings. 84. Based on the foregoing, the Court deems that the State exceeded the reasonable time in processing the subjective or full jurisdiction remedies Nº 1016 and Nº 4431 filed by María Salvador Chiriboga, since, up to the moment, fourteen and eleven years have passed, respectively, since the filing of the complaints, which were lodged on May 11, 1994 and December 17, 1997, and there has been no judgment on the merits regarding the issues raised so far. 85. Moreover, the Commission and the representatives argued that there has been a violation of Article 25 of the Convention in the instant case, since up to the moment, the different remedies lodged have no final decision, thus, Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga had had not access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse. Finally, the State indicated that its domestic legal system does provide with prompt and simple remedies in order to protect alleged violated rights as the ones of Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga. 84 Cf. briefs submitted by Mrs. Salvador Chiriboga requesting delivery of judgment of : July 20, 2001; July 5, 2002; October 13, 2003 and January 11, 2005 (case file N° 4431, record of appendixes to the brief of requests and arguments, Appendixes 1 to 3, p. 1447 to 1450). 85 Article 3 of the Administrative-Contentious Jurisdiction Act provides that: “[..t]he full jurisdiction or subjective remedy protects the subjective right of the plaintiff, allegedly rejected, unknown or not partially or totally recognized by the respective administrative act. […]”. 86 Article 34 of the Administrative-Contentious Jurisdiction Act establishes that “[t]he defendant’s answer to the complaint shall be filed within fifteen days[…]”. In the same sense, Article 38 of such Act provides that “[w]ith the answer of the complaint, notice will be served on the plaintiff and on the same court order; in case there are facts that must need justification, discovery will be ordered for the period of ten days […]. When the controversy exclusively deals with questions of law […] the Tribunal shall deliver judgment within the term of twelve days”. And Article 41 establishes that “[u]pon conclusion of the discovery, the Tribunal shall deliver judgment within the term of twelve days”. To such regard, the Court notes that the general period established for all civil trials by the Civil Procedural Code should be added to the term of 27 and 37 days. 87 Article 42 of the Administrative-Contentious Jurisdiction Act establishes that “[I]n general, all the interlocutory proceedings initiated during the trial shall not be decided beforehand and shall be decided in the judgment […]”.