alleged violation, and that he should have initiated a lawsuit for economic injury against the provincial government for the alleged delay of justice caused by Labor Tribunal No. 3. 5. The State also argues that, to some degree, the delay could have been avoided if the petitioner himself had urged the case forward appropriately. The State further alleges that the special appeals filed by the petitioner with the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires Province—the recurso de inaplicabilidad and the recurso de nulidad—are not the appropriate means to claim reparations for damages caused to an individual as the result of an alleged delay by the Tribunal. The State therefore argues that the case should be declared inadmissible. 6. According to the provisions of Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as well as Articles 30 and 37 of its Rules of Procedure, and after analyzing the positions of the parties, the Commission decided to declare the petition admissible. Therefore, the IACHR has decided to notify the parties of its decision and to continue to analyze the merits of the case regarding alleged violations of Articles 8(1) (right to a fair trial) and 25 (right to judicial protection), in relation to Article 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) of the American Convention. The Commission has also decided to notify both parties of its decision, to publish this decision, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. II. PROCESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 7. The petitioner filed the complaint with the Executive Secretariat of the Commission on September 11, 2000. The IACHR began to process the petition on October 6, 2003, the date on which it transmitted the relevant parts of the petition to the State and requested a response within two months. 8. In a message dated November 25, 2003, the State asked the Commission for a one-month extension for the submission of its observations. The extension of the deadline was granted on December 16 of that year. 9. On February 9, 2004, the petitioner submitted a brief indicating that the State had failed to meet the deadline as it had not yet responded to the Commission. In note SG 166 of June 17, 2004, the State submitted the information requested by the Commission. This was transmitted to the petitioner in a message dated September 2, 2004.