notes that nothing in the case file indicates that this was a complex proceeding, nor has the State argued or proven that it was. 104. As for the element of the activity of the interested party, the State has asserted that the delay in the court proceedings is a consequence of a lack of diligence on the part of the plaintiff. Specifically, it claims that it did not take five years to recognize that it owned the property where the accident occurred, as alleged by the petitioner, inasmuch as it had not even been served notice of the complaint brought. The State further argues that said length of time can be attributed to the fact that the plaintiff responded five years later to the judge’s request of November 1991 to specify against whom the complaint was directed.169 105. Nonetheless, the Commission notes that, based on the proven facts, on March 13, 1992, that is, four months after the court’s request, the petitioner’s attorney stated that the suit was directed against the Ministry of National Defense, inasmuch as it is the State agency to whom the site where the accident occurred belonged to. Notwithstanding, without prejudice to that, the petitioner’s attorney requested that a letter be issued to the Property Registry for it to provide information on ownership of the property.170 106. The Commission further notices that there was a period of procedural inactivity between April 1994 —when the court placed on the record the delivery of a letter addressed to the Property Registry— and February 1996 —when the attorney for the petitioner withdrew her request regarding the letters to the aforementioned Registry. The IACHR notes that since said institution did not respond to the request for information on ownership of the property, the attorney for the petitioner needed to withdraw her request for said evidence. It should be said that verification of ownership of the property was the responsibility of the State, which had said information in its possession. Therefore, the Commission finds no basis to attribute the inactivity to the plaintiff. 107. The IACHR also finds it important to remember that in evaluating reasonableness of time, even in proceedings other than those of a criminal nature, the Inter-American Court has affirmed that the State “in its exercise of judicial function, holds a public duty, thus the behavior of the judicial authorities do not exclusively depend on the procedural effort of the plaintiff to the proceedings.”171 108. Lastly, nothing appears in the case file before the IACHR to suggest that the plaintiff had taken any measures or filed any motions in the domestic proceedings for the purpose of stalling or delaying the course of the proceedings. In fact, the Commission notes that the petitioner, by means of his legal representative, consistently came forth in the case requesting the court to proceed with the trial and, following completion of the evidentiary stage, he continually and repeatedly requested the judge to issue the judgment in the case.172 Furthermore, it appears on the 169 Communication of the State forwarded in note No. 74 received on February 23, 2009, p. 5. 170 Communication of the State forwarded in note No. 74 received on February 23, 2009, p. 3. 171 I/A Court H.R., Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Dismissed and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 76. Additionally, in a case decided by the European Court pertaining to compensation stemming from an expropriation in which the court determined that there was a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time, the court noted that the plaintiff had contributed to the procedural delay —in pursuing a remedy before the court that was not the adequate one— but that notwithstanding, the State was more at fault for its bearing on the delay in having taken more than five years to hold the first hearing in the case. Beaumartin v. France, 15287/89, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, October 25, 1994. 172 See for example, the following pleadings submitted by the attorney for the petitioner in the civil suit for damages against the State: “Continue with proceedings” (motion filed on May 24, 1991, page 19); “I request order” (motion filed on November 8, 1991, page 21); “I request report– (…)” (motion filed on November 10, 1993, page 38); “Add record”