the province of Buenos Aires, for the alleged delay of Labor Tribunal No. 3. However, the State has not presented any evidence to the Commission that has demonstrated that this would be the appropriate recourse to hold the State responsible for an allegedly unreasonable duration of a judicial proceeding. The Commission, following an analysis of the norms, jurisprudence, and Argentinean doctrine, observes that the action for damages has not been shown to be viable, in practice, to repair the damage caused by the State in cases specifically dealing with procedural delay, but is rather a theoretical possibility suggested by a collection of doctrines but never developed by the laws or jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Argentina. 32. Firstly, there does not exist in the Province of Buenos Aires a regulatory law that specifically establishes the possibility of an action for material damages for cases of procedural delay. 4 Nevertheless, Article 166, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Province of Buenos Aires establishes the duty of the province to create a system of complaints for delay in the justice system and in Article 15 of the same document there is mention of the duty of the judiciary to process cases in a reasonable time period5, these provisions have not materialized into the creation of a concrete remedy, action, or measure – be it an action for damages or otherwise – to repair civilly the damage caused by delay in the processing of judicial proceedings. 33. Secondly, and as the State itself maintains, there does not exist in the Jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Argentina cases in which, in the processing of an action for damages, there has been a ruling regarding the concept of the responsibility of the State for the procedural delay of a case. 6 34. Thirdly, although within Argentinean doctrine various authors have attempted to invoke the responsibility of the judiciary for an 4 Constitution of Buenos Aires. Article 166 No. 4.”The law shall establish an expedited complaint process for delay of justice”. The mechanisms developed have been of a disciplinary nature none of them of a civil one. 5 Constitution of Buenos Aires. Article 15. “Cases should be decided within a reasonable time period. Delay in delivering a judgment and undue delays that are repeated, constitute a serious fault.” 6 Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Argentina has developed in its jurisprudence general principles that allow the invocation of the responsibility of the judiciary in cases of wrongful sentencing and unjust preventative imprisonment, Regarding this it is possible to consult the Case “Mattei” of November 29, 1968, judgment 272:188; Case “Pileckas” of May 12, 1977, judgment 297:486; Case “Mozzatti” October 17, 1978, judgment 300:1102.; Case “Berel Todres” November 11, 1980, judgment 302:1333.; Case “Firmenich” July 28, 1987, judgment 310:1476.; Case “Polak” October 15, 1998, judgment 321:2826.; Case “Kipperband” of March 16, 1999, judgment 322:360.