in the proceedings. 181. Regarding the third element of analysis—the actions taken by judicial authorities—it should especially be noted that the complexity of the facts required, in the State’s justification, formulating and executing a "strategy" for prosecuting the cases. Thus, the institutions of the justice system identified mechanisms aimed at “making it possible to bring the cases to trial effectively,” which meant a strategy based on “prioritizing” the cases. As a result, according to expert witness Pablo Parenti, the prioritization meant that the processes were "elevated" to trial in “tranches," which in turn entailed joining cases for prosecution and, consequently, other processes were faced with a "wait" because they were not part of the set of prioritized ones. According to the expert witness, Resolution PGN 13/08 of the Attorney General of the Nation and the "Guidelines" for its implementation 199 represent "an action guide for prosecution” and "[d]efine a strategic model aimed at making maximal use of the evidence.” 200 182. The Court notes that the case prioritization strategy constitutes one of the tools devised by the Argentine judicial system to address the complexity of the processes and the massive number of facts to be processed, prosecuted, and punished. Regarding this strategy, called “exemplary” by the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, 201 the Commission and the representatives did not raise specific objections, and therefore the Court does not have reason to question it. Essentially, this strategy meant that under the prioritization strategy established, each case had to wait for as long as necessary to move to the next procedural phase. However, in the specific case, with regard to the facts perpetrated against Ms. Grisonas Andrijauskaite and her children, Anatole and Victoria, in view of the convictions handed down, the strategy did not amount to a denial of justice. 183. In more general terms, the Court does not find that the actions of the judicial authorities in charge of the different processes caused per se an unjustified delay, something that was also not specifically argued by the Commission and the representative. Although the latter alluded to “delays and omissions” in the investigation of the facts committed against Anatole and Victoria, which was the reason for specific pleadings in the processing of the judicial procedure (supra para. 100), its argument did not identify a specific shortcoming in the judicial proceedings. On the contrary, it can be inferred from the argument that the objection is over a disagreement with the judicial criteria or, ultimately, with the prioritization criteria applied to the specific case. 202 184. With regard to prosecution for the acts committed against Julien Cáceres, the Court See, “Pautas para la implementación de la Resolución PGN 13/08,” issued by the Attorney General of the Nation on March 3, 2008, which instructs prosecutors to “prioritize bringing to trial cases of grave human rights violations committed during State terrorism.” These “guidelines” were prepared by the Prosecutor Unit for Coordination and Follow-up on cases of human rights violations committed during State terrorism. Available at: https://www.mpf.gob.ar/Institucional/UnidadesFE/pautas-para-la-impl-13-08.pdf. 200 Cf. Written expert opinion rendered by Pablo Parenti (evidence file, volume XI, written expert opinions, folios 16896 and 16921). 201 Cf. Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion of truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-recurrence, Pablo de Greiff, UN Doc. A/HRC/27/56, August 27, 2014, pars. 35, 36, 41, 44 to 74, 105, and 118. According to the Special Rapporteur, a "prioritization strategy" consists of establishing " a strategic order in which cases [...] are investigated and prosecuted," which is justified in that, in situations resulting from the action of "complex systems organized with criminal intent,” judicial systems “show themselves unable to deal with their caseloads while offering all required due process and fair trial guarantees,” and thus, “not adopting a prioritization strategy may be particularly detrimental.” 202 The representative pointed out that even though the facts of the case “constituted a single set of very serious behaviors,” the judge “inexplicably split the investigation” to “send to oral trial the prosecution of the crimes perpetrated against the parents, yet failing to include and rather leaving out […] the very serious crimes” committed against Anatole and Victoria. Cf. Brief filed on September 18, 2017, by Eduardo Marques Iraola, on behalf of Anatole Alejandro Larrabeiti Yáñez, before Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 3 in case No. 2637/04 (evidence file, volume I, annex 21 to the Report on the Merits, folios 1546 to 1562). 199 48