102. With respect to the civil suit, the Commission finds that there were two lengthy periods of procedural inactivity: i) six years after Mr. Miguel Ángel Avaro filed a lawsuit for damages until Dr. Barrón conducted the expert examination ordered by the court; and ii) more than nine years since that expert report until the issuance of the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the lawsuit. Thus, a total of more than 15 years elapsed before the next of kin of Ms. Cristina Britez Arce obtained a ruling on their lawsuit. 103. The statement made by the expert witness Moreno before the Inter-American Court in the case of Furlán and family v. Argentina must be stressed as he indicated that proceedings for damages should not last more than two years, indicating that many of the delays fall “under an operative framework of spectator judges.”122 104. In connection with procedural activities of the interested party, the Commission does not observe any obstruction by the next of kin, and the state has not submitted any arguments that would indicate that there is any. In any case, the Court has pointed out that the state, in the exercise of its judicial duty, has its own legal duty, as a result of which the conduct of judicial authorities must not depend exclusively on the procedural initiative of the claimant of the proceedings,123 which is especially relevant when involving proceedings hearing possible human rights violations. 105. Because of all of the above, the Commission concludes that the state of Argentina is responsible for violating the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection as laid out in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the next of kin of Cristina Britez Arce. Likewise, bearing in mind that the specific circumstances in which the Ms. Britez’s death occurred were not investigated with due diligence, because, as indicated, she died without the proper medical care pertaining to her condition as a pregnant woman, the Commission considers that the state is responsible for violating Article 7 of the Belém do Pará Convention. D. Right to personal integrity of Cristina Britez Arce���s son and daughter in connection with Article 1.1 of the American Convention 106. Regarding the next of kin of victims of certain human rights violations, the Inter-American Commission and Court have indicated that they can be considered as victims as well. 124 Regarding this, the Court has provided that they can be adversely affected in their mental and moral integrity as a consequence of the specific situations suffered by the victims, as well as the subsequent actions or omission of domestic authorities with respect to these incidents. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the right to integrity of the next of kin can be affected because of the close family ties and the steps undertaken to obtain justice.125 107. In the instant case, the Commission has established that the rights of Ms. Cristina Britez Arce’s next of kin to a fair trial and judicial protection, in connection with the right to life, were violated. These circumstances autonomously constitute a source of suffering and powerlessness for them, and to date they are not certain about the cause of her death. The death of their mother with whom they lived, when Ezequiel Martín was 15 years old and Vanina 12 years old, at the height of adolescence, as well as the search for justice and truth, on I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246. Statement by the expert witness Gustavo Daniel Moreno at the public hearing held on February 27, 2012 at the Inter-American Court: “[…] proceedings for damages last an average of 4 years; however, they should not last that long. These proceedings should be quicker, not only because of the procedural standards that establish the term for production of evidence and the term that the Judge has to issue the judgment, but also because these terms often fall under an operative framework of spectator judges. The truth is that a process should last no more than 2 years.” 123 I/A Court H.R. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 69; and I/A Court H.R. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador, para. 83, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 76. 124 IACHR. Report No. 11/10. Case 12.488. Merits. Members of the Barrios Family. Venezuela. March 16, 2010, para. 91. IACHR. Report on Terrorism and Human Rights, para. 227; I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 112; and Case of Bueno Alves v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 164, para. 102. 125 I/A Court H.R. Case of Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 10, 2007. Series C No. 167, para. 112; and Case of Vargas Areco v. Paraguay. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Series C No. 155, para. 96. 122 23