189. Likewise, the Court notes that the medical expert witness requested an MRI to be performed on May 18, 1998, and that, after a number of administrative procedures,329 an appointment to carry out this test was finally obtained on January 11, 2000, in other words over 1 year and 7 months later (supra para. 94). The Court considers that the time taken to perform the medical test is unreasonable and reflects a lack of diligence by the authorities involved, specifically the Health Secretariat of the City of Buenos Aires. The foregoing is even more serious considering that the health of a minor with a disability was involved (supra para. 139), for whom even greater promptness was required, not only in the judicial proceedings under way but also to obtain the evidence that was being gathered for said proceedings and that, in addition, was requested from another State entity. Consequently, the Court finds that the actions of the State as the defendant party and those of its institutions showed significant levels of passivity, inactivity and lack of due diligence, aspects that are very problematic in a case of this nature and that caused the delay in the resolution of the judicial proceedings.330 190. Bearing in mind the reasons outlined above, the Court considers that the State has not demonstrated that the prolonged delay of more than 12 years is not attributable to the behavior of its authorities,331 particularly if we take into account that it was not only the judicial authorities who had a direct involvement in these proceedings, but also that several of the delays are attributable to state agents who participated as the defendant party or who should have provided information or acted in an expedite manner in order to guarantee the celerity of the proceedings. C.5) Adverse effect on the judicial situation of the interested party and impact on personal integrity Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 191. The Commission argued that “the purpose of the proceedings was to determine the State’s responsibility in Sebastián’s case [...] which would lead to monetary reparation deemed key to providing adequate and timely rehabilitation treatment and psychological and psychiatric assistance to Sebastián.” It further stressed that “Sebastián Furlan was an adolescent when he sustained the permanent damage and, therefore, required the attention and rehabilitation befitting his stage of development” as well as “a special degree of diligence” by the State. It also argued that “Sebastián sustained a severe disability as a result of the accident, the consequences of which required timely and multidisciplinary treatment and, in light of [his] precarious economic situation […] he needed the award.” The Commission added that “the effects that the unwarranted delay in the suit had on Sebastián” constituted “a separate violation of his right to personal integrity.” 192. The representatives held that the “beginning and results of the lawsuit […] had a close link with the rehabilitation needs” of Sebastián Furlan, given that “the passage of time directly affected [his] health,” and that the “the longer the delay in receiving the compensation the more limited were the possibilities of obtaining comprehensive treatment 329 Cf. Official communications prepared to obtain the appointment for an MRI, supra note 168. 330 In a similar case where the domestic judicial authorities took over two years to collect the medical evidence required by the plaintiff to prove the injuries caused by a traffic accident, the European Court considered that only exceptional circumstances could justify this type of delay. ECHR, Case of Martins Moreira v. Portugal (No. 11371/85) Judgment of October 7, 1998, para. 58 (“The Court finds it surprising that it took two years to carry out three medical examinations, the longest of which required only fifteen days. Only very exceptional circumstances could justify such a delay.”) 331 Cf. Case of González Medina and relatives v. Dominican Republic, para. 260. 61