113. It is also on record in the court file that at least on two occasions the Ministry of Defense authorities failed to appear at hearings called by the judiciary. For example, in March 1997, the court called a settlement hearing in order for the parties to attempt to reach a settlement; however, the Army Staff failed to attend. Subsequently, in February 1998, once again, Army Staff failed to attend a cross-examination hearing requested by the military authority itself. 114. A further example of the lack of procedural activity by the State is that despite the firm and binding final judgment that was rendered on November 23, 2000, the bonds were not credited to the petitioner’s account until December 17, 2002, and he did not received the reparation until March 12, 2003. In other words, the judgment was not executed until more than two years after it was rendered. 115. With regard to the foregoing, the IACHR notes that the conduct of the judicial authorities in a proceeding in which the defendant is the State itself—as is the case with administrative civil suits or civil suits in which a ruling on civil liability is being pursued for damages by a State entity, such as the General Staff of the Argentine Army– such a proceeding must be analyzed taking into account that it is not a civil suit between private parties. In fact, suits in which one of the parties is the State can have specific characteristics with regard to each party’s access to information and resources. Even though the IACHR believes that this analysis must be done on a case by case basis, it concludes that, taking into account the particular circumstances of the present case in which the information requested was in the possession of a State entity, Argentina has failed to prove that the conduct displayed by the judicial authorities was diligent. 116. Taking into account the abovementioned, that is, the delay of several years by the tribunal to serve the complaint to the Ministry of Defense; the one-year and one-year-and-a-half delays in forwarding the experts reports to the parties; failure of the military authorities to attend the hearings on settlement and for cross-examination; the fact that although the IACHR established that the case was not complex, the tribunal took more than nine years to certify that no further evidence was pending production; the delay of more than 2 years in executing the sentence; as well as the fact that the case was brought against a State entity and not between individuals, the Commission concludes that it is proven that the conduct by the State authorities in the domestic proceedings was not diligent. 117. The IACHR additionally notes that the examination of the element of the conduct of the judicial authorities is closely linked to the infringement of the rights of the party at-interest. In cases where infringement of the rights of the party at-interest is of dire importance to a person’s life or physical integrity, the European Court has stressed the duty of the State to apply a special degree of diligence.174 In the present case, the IACHR notes that the purpose of the proceedings was to determine State’s responsibility in Sebastian’s case —whose accident resulted in permanent physical and psychological disability at 14 years of age— which would lead to monetary reparation deemed key to providing adequate and timely rehabilitation treatment and psychological and psychiatric assistance to Sebastian. The IACHR believes, on this point, that the processing of the proceedings in this particular case warranted a special degree of diligence from the judicial authorities. 118. Along these same lines, the IACHR points to the case of Silva Pontes v. Portugal. In determining the reasonableness of time in a civil suit for damages between private individuals stemming from a traffic accident, the European Court held in this case that considering the significance of the proceedings to the victim, who had been left severely disabled and consequently unable to work, a special degree of diligence is necessary in determining compensation for traffic 174 ECHR, H. vs. United Kingdom, July 8, 1988, para. 85.