81 268. The State argued, in general, that “all the constitutional courts in the world have a backlog of cases and priority must be given to the cases that are most delayed based on the principle that everyone is equal before the law.” The State also argued that an unjustified delay did not exist because, “taking into consideration the thousands of cases processed by the Supreme Court of Justice, it cannot be suggested that there has been an unjustified judicial delay in this case.” Considerations of the Court 269. The Court notes that the appeal for nullification was filed with the Political-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice on April 17, 2007. Subsequently, on October 9, 2007, the evidentiary stage was initiated and the Political-Administrative Chamber delayed from October 23, 2007, until March 6, 2008, to issue a ruling on the admission of the evidence provided by the parties. On March 6, 2008, the Trial Court of the Political-Administrative Chamber issued the decision on the admission of the evidence provided; both the presumed victims and the State appealed this decision. On June 19, 2008, the Court admitted the appeals and forwarded the proceedings to the Political-Administrative Chamber. The decision on the appeals is pending since June 26, 2008, and, therefore, the proceedings are halted at the evidentiary stage (supra para. 111). 270. The Court finds that excessive delays have occurred at different stages of the proceedings – especially at the evidentiary stage and despite numerous requests by the presumed victims – and they are halted since 2008. The Court considers that the State has not proved that the prolonged delay of more than seven years cannot be attributed to the conduct of its authorities, and therefore concludes that the judicial authority did not ensure, diligently, that a reasonable time was respected in this case. Lastly, the Court reiterates that the large number of cases pending before a court does not, in itself, justify violating the right of the individual to obtain a decision in a reasonable time.316 d) Effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 271. The Commission indicated that “the situation of those involved has been continuously affected because, since May 28, 2007, they have been unable to express themselves through the free-to-air RCTV television channel.” 272. The representatives argued that the facts described “clearly characterize the violation of the procedural guarantee of a trial without undue delays, as well as a violation of the human right of access to effective and expedite justice established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention.” 273. The State presented no specific arguments on this point. Considerations of the Court 274. The Court reiterates that, to determine whether the time is reasonable, it is necessary to take into account the effects of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person involved in them, considering, among other aspects, the matter that is the purpose of the dispute.317 In this regard, the Court has established that if the passage of time has a 316 Cf. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Contentious Administrative Court”) v. Venezuela, para. 180. 317 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina, para. 196.