16. He adds that on September 16, 1997 he went before the Office of the Inspector General of the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires to lodge a complaint over the delays and negligence perpetrated by Labor Tribunal No. 3 in his proceedings. He reports that the Supreme Court held the file and did not issue a decision for almost two years. Then, on April 16, 1999, it determined that while there had been a delay, it would merely reprimand the clerk of court of the Tribunal. 17. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner argues that the State violated Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention. B. The State 18. In its briefs, the State indicates that Mr. Victorio Spoltore did not exhaust the remedies available under domestic law to remedy the violation. He should have litigated lawsuits to determine the civil liability of the State for the harm caused. The State asserts that in order to claim full reparations for the damages caused to the petitioner, he should have filed suit for economic injury against the provincial government for the abnormal exercise of its judicial function.2 19. The State points out that, according to national doctrine regarding civil liability, in cases in which judicial officers fail to abide by the legal obligation to administer justice, the State is directly responsible. Considering this, the State indicates that the Supreme Court of Argentina has established through its jurisprudence, general criteria that indicate under what circumstances one can file for damages from the State based on unlawful administration of justice. Nevertheless, the State clarifies that the Court has not intervened, specifically, in cases related with the alleged unreasonable duration of judicial proceedings. Based on this, the State affirms that a demand for damages from the provincial government constitutes, in the present case, the appropriate remedy to be exhausted by the petitioner. 20. The State additionally alleges that the purpose of the complaint which the petitioner lodged with the Office of the Inspector General of the Supreme Court, was an investigation of Labor Tribunal No. 3, and to impose sanctions for its negligence and delays. The State indicates that Mr. Spoltore made a mistake in the procedural path that he pursued. The function of the Supreme Court is not to adjudicate reparations to a petitioner for injuries 2 The State indicates that Article 1112 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Argentina specifically refers to damages caused by acts or omissions committed by civil servants in the exercise of their duties for unduly fulfilling their legal obligations.