authorities that cannot be quantified in a specific delay in time, but that evidently contributed to delaying the proceeding. 301 The Court notes that the constant appeals filed by the parties to the proceeding may have given rise to certain confusion in its processing; nevertheless, since the judge is the director of the proceeding, he must ensure its correct processing. In addition, the Court stresses that the proceeding is still pending the production of evidence, even though that procedural stage was opened on September 18, 2003, for twenty days. 302 177. The delays that can be attributed to the judges responsible for the civil proceeding have also been acknowledged by the Argentine judicial authorities. In this regard, in April 1999, when deciding on a request for extinction of the proceeding, the judge decided that this “could not have occurred, because, the said delay [of approximately six months] could be attributed exclusively to the court, [as matters relating to the absence of a power of attorney inactivity following the reception of the documentation requested from other courts that had heard the case. Cf. Request of the Judge of Criminal and Correctional Matters of September 10, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1929); note of February 26, 1999 of the First Judge of Criminal and Correctional Matters of the Judicial Department of Mercedes (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1931 and 1932); decision of June 10, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1961); note forwarding the case file of July 7, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1966); decision of April 24, 2000 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1968); decision of March 19, 2002 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2160); decision of March 20, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2167); decision of April 28, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2171); decision of June 5, 2003 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2173); request of October 21, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2237); note of December 30, 2004 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2242); brief of February 1, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2243); brief of April 27, 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2255); decision of July 27 2005 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2245); decision of October 23, 2008 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2650), and decision of August 5, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2653). 301 See, for example: (i) the return of the case file during the first stage of the proceeding by the Appellate Chamber for the first instance court to decide other remedies that were pending (supra para. 96), and (ii) by considering that the response of March 17, 1999, answered “promptly and appropriately” a request for declaration of nullity of April 3, 1998, which had been notified for five days on July 10, 1998. Cf. Brief of April 3, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1891 to 1893); brief of March 17, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1937 to 1944), and decision of April 6, 1999 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folios 1945). 302 In this regard, the Court notes that, according to the case file, on March 30, 1998, twelve cassettes handed over by the presumed victims were “held in reserve” and, on March 30, 2001, another seven cassettes were held in reserve. The changes of court, mainly due to the recusal of the judge hearing the case, led to the cassettes not being kept with the case file. In this regard, on several occasions the presumed victims asked that notes be sent to the court to forward the cassettes to the courts that were hearing the proceeding at that time. In October 2010, the court received seven cassettes; accordingly the presumed victims stressed that some cassettes were still missing and asked that the request be repeated to a judge who had been hearing the case. However, the judge advised that the cassettes requested were not in that secretariat. Cf. Decision of March 30, 1998 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 1875); decision of March 30, 2001 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2035); brief of August 31, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2656); decision of August 31, 2009 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2657); brief of July 16, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1651); brief of August 4, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1652); note of October 8, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1656); brief of April 8, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1669), and note of February 11, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1673). In parallel, there were delays in the appointment of an expert to transcribe the cassettes, and the transcription was carried out six years after it had been requested by the presumed victims. In this regard, on October 12, 2006, the judge of the case ordered that a note be sent to the Departmental Chamber “asking if […] it had a record of experts whose expertise consisted in the transcription of audio [cassettes].” On November 28, 2010, “the [Departmental] Expertise Advisory Services [reported that] it did not have an expert with expertise in the transcription of [cassettes].” On May 2, 2011, an expert translator was appointed to make the transcripts. On May 2, 2012, the judge asked the pertinent court to forward “the technical elements to listen to 77 [cassettes] offered as evidence. On May 27, 2012, the complainant Piriz asked for the name of an expert who had been chosen for the case. Cf. Undated brief requesting the production of evidence (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2560); decision of October 12, 2006 (file of annexes to the answer, annex 1, folio 2561); note of November 28, 2010 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1659); note of March 4, 2011 (merits file, annex G, folio 442); brief of May 29, 2012 (merits file, annex G, folio 443), and note of May 27, 2011 (file of annexes to the pleadings and motions brief, annex 2, folio 1680). 67