C.3) Procedural activity of the interested party Arguments of the parties and of the Inter-American Commission 160. The Commission stated that it found no “basis to attribute the inactivity to the plaintiff.” It considered that although the State claimed “that […] the plaintiff responded five years later to the judge’s request of November 1991 to specify against whom the complaint was directed”, it was “four months after the court’s request [that] the petitioner’s attorney stated that the suit was directed against the Ministry of National Defense […], [and] without prejudice to that, the petitioner’s attorney requested that a letter be issued to the Property Registry for it to provide information on the ownership of the property.” Similarly, it referred to the procedural inactivity during the period between April 1994 and February 1996, when “the attorney for the petitioner withdrew the request [for a letter to be issued to the Property Registry],” due to the lack of response by that authority. Furthermore, it found no evidence to suggest that the alleged victim “had taken any measures or filed any motions in the domestic proceedings for the purpose of stalling or delaying the course of the proceedings.” On the contrary, it noted that “the petitioner […]consistently came forth in the case, requesting the Court to proceed with the trial, and following completion of the evidentiary phase, he continually and repeatedly requested the judge to issue a judgment in the case.” 161. The representatives asserted that “the plaintiff always tried to move the proceedings forward at all times” and that “there is no evidence to suggest a lack of diligence on his part.” They claimed that this has been demonstrated in the fact that: i) he had to “request three times that the suit be served,” while the judge “prior to the notice of suit, ordered reports from different State entities […], which were totally unnecessary.” This, because “after five years and two months since the proceeding began, the suit was served without having received the information requested”; ii) he “advised the judge on the delays in the presentation of the medical expert opinions” and, iii) requested three times for a ruling to be issued. 162. The State of Argentina held that “the detailed analysis” of the proceedings shows that “the delay […] is directly due to the lack of diligence by the private attorneys who assisted Furlan.” As basis for this statement it indicated that “in the first stage of the proceedings” the petitioner: i) took over 2 months after jurisdiction was established to amend the petition, and over one month after that to file a brief “requesting the continuation of the actions”; ii) “from the file there is no evidence [to show] that the letter [sent to the General Staff of the Army] to report on investigations related to the case of Furlan was prepared and processed by the attorney”; iii) the judge asked the attorney to indicate against whom the action was being brought, given “the contradictions” in which he had allegedly incurred, since “the petition filed attributed ownership of the property to the Army, and subsequently, in the addendum to the suit […] it offered as informative evidence a letter sent to the Property Registry.” It added that the interested party, “just four months later, […] stated that it was filing the suit against the Ministry of National Defense and requested, as a preliminary measure, for the evidence to be offered for this purpose to be required”; iv) it took three months to prepare the letter to the Property Registry and five months to the Cadastre Office; and v) “inexplicably the attorney presented a new brief […], on November 1, 1993 […,]requesting “a new communication to be issued to the Office of Property Registry” with the data given by the Cadastre Office. This letter was prepared “the following year, in March 1994.” It concluded by indicating that the State “could not have incurred in a delay in recognizing the ownership of the properties during [the] first five years, given that it had not even been notified of the petition.” 53