record that the interested party submitted several motions to request that follow-up to the case be conducted, even during the judgment execution stage.173 109. Based on established facts, the arguments of the parties and foregoing background information, the IACHR finds that the State has not shown, as it alleges, that the procedural activity of the interested party was negligent or dilatory. 110. As for the element of the conduct of the judicial authorities, the IACHR notes periods of time during which there was no procedural activity by the State. For example, more than 5 years went by between the filing of the complaint and notification by the court. Thus, as has been established in the proven facts, it was not until November 14, 1991, that is, 11 months after the filing of the complaint, that the judge requested the petitioner to state against whom the suit was directed, to which he [the petitioner] responded four months later, in March 1992, that it was against the Ministry of Defense. Additionally, on said opportunity the petitioner asked the court to request certain evidence from an agency of the State, which did not respond, despite the efforts made by the plaintiff and an explicit court order to do so. Based on the foregoing, the complaint filed in December 1990, was not served on the defendant until February 1996. Therefore, the IACHR believes that the delay of several years in notifying the Ministry of Defense of the complaint has not been explained or justified by the State. 111. Another example of delay in the judicial proceedings in this case is that the Ministry of Defense provided its answer to the complaint more than six months after it was served, despite the 60-day deadline set for it to do so. 112. Moreover, on October 1997, at the request of the attorney for Sebastian, the judge opened the proceedings to take evidence for a period of 40 days, giving the parties 10 days to introduce evidence. It is an established fact that the court issued the order for the evidence offered by the plaintiff and set the month of August 1998, that is, nine months after offering the evidence, as a deadline to receive testimonial statements. Additionally, in February 1998, the judge appointed the expert witnesses that had been requested by the plaintiff. Nonetheless, as of December of 1998, no psychological report had been submitted and, for this reason, the plaintiff requested the court to order it to be submitted under threat of removal of appointment. Neither had there been any substantial progress in obtaining the neurological expert report. The psychological and neurological expert reports, therefore, were not forwarded by the judge to the parties until March and November 1999 respectively, in other words, more than a year and a year and a half [respectively] after the appointments. Consequently, it was not until March 2000, more than nine years after the complaint was filed in the case, that the court certified that no further evidence was pending production. (motion in which, in addition to adding a record, the plaintiff requests “order for the defendant to appear;” filed on September 9, 1996, page 51); “States [he] be directed” (motion filed on March 17, 1997, page 66); “Order opening of evidentiary [stage]” (motion filed on October 21, 1997, page 90); “Direct expert to submit report” (motion filed on December 10, 1998, page 221); “Certify evidence.- Close evidentiary period” (motion filed on February 25, 2000, page 94); “Issue judgment” (motion filed on April 18, 2000, page 294); “Issue judgment” (motion filed on May 23, 2000, page 305); “Enforce order and issue judgment” (motion filed between April and September, 2000, page 319). Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus Vs National State for Damages.” Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008. 173 Motion submitted by the attorney for the petitioner (undated, but after judgment was issued – it is missing “back” of the page), titled “Performance payment on 1-4-91 (Lay 23.982 and Dec. 2140) Formula reserve” (on page 362); Motion submited on March 22, 2001 titled “Lift supension of procedural time periods. Serve notice of liquidation” (on page 363); Motion submitted on April 3, 2001 titled “Issue order” (page 365); Motion submitted by the attorney for the petitioner (undated, but after the judgment was issued – missing “back” of page), titled “Approve payment. Request certified copies. Request certificate;” Motion filed by by Danilo Furlan on December 2, 2002 (on pages 405-406). Case proceedings file titled “Furlan Sebastian Claus v. National State for Damages.” Annex to communication from the State received on October 15, 2008.