80 262. The Commission indicated that “the available information does not suggest that the litigants engaged in any activity that would have caused an unwarranted delay in processing the petition. Their interventions in the proceedings included the offer of evidence, an appeal against the ruling declaring certain evidence inadmissible, and the filing of three more petitions seeking unspecified interim measures, which indicates an active participation, with nothing to suggest that it was frivolous.” 263. The representatives argued that “[the procedural activity] of the interested party […] has only been addressed at trying to obtain a rapid processing and settlement of the matter, as proved by the insistent requests to the Chamber for a decision on the appeals concerning the evidence filed by both parties.” 264. The State presented no specific arguments on this point. Considerations of the Court 265. The Court underscores that it has received no specific information or arguments regarding any activities of the representatives or the presumed victims that might have hindered the proceedings. To the contrary, the Court finds that the presumed victims instigated measures to try and advance the proceedings. For example, the Court recalls that between August 12, 2008, and October 22, 2009, the presumed victims filed eight petitions before the presiding judge requesting that she adjudicate the appeals filed at the evidentiary stage, without obtaining any response. Nevertheless, the Court reiterates that the State, in exercise of its judicial functions, has inherent legal obligations; hence the conduct of the judicial authorities does not depend exclusively on the procedural initiative of the petitioner in the proceedings.315 c) The conduct of the judicial authorities Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 266. The Commission “observe[d] the long delays in settling procedural issues necessary for the case to move forward,” and indicated that “[t]he court took from October 23, 2007, to March 6, 2008, to deliver its ruling on the admissibility of the evidence offered by the parties. Both parties appealed this ruling; a decision on those appeals has been pending since June 26, 2008; in the meantime, the proceedings have been suspended.” The Commission also indicated that there had been a “lack of any explanation from the State for the more than four years’ delay in arriving at a decision on this matter,” and concluded that the appeal for nullification “ha[d]not been decided within a reasonable time.” 267. The representatives argued that the Political-Administrative Chamber “ha[d] incurred in […] unjustified delay, inactivity and lack of procedural integrity”; in particular, they indicated that the delay occurred “specifically at the evidentiary stage of the proceedings, which began on October 9, 2007, and, to date, has not concluded as a result of the lack of the necessary procedural activity of the presiding judge and despite the constant insistence and failed attempts by RCTV to advance the proceedings.” Lastly, the representatives indicated that “although [six] years have passed since the appeals were filed, no decision has been issued on the merits and the proceedings are halted with no justification.” Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83, and Case of Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, para. 238. 315