115. Regarding the first argument, the Court notes that the action for damages was filed on December 27, 1999, and just over five months later, on June 8, 2000, the action was partially rejected by admitting the objection of lack of legitimacy to be sued filed by the trial judge, and the decision was taken to continue processing the action with regard to the National State. 115 Therefore, this fact did not have a relevant impact on the total duration of the proceedings that, let us remember, lasted more than eight years. 116. The Court also notes that other arguments presented by the State focused on certain omissions by Mr. Jenkins when substantiating his action (supra para. 114.2 and 114.7). The Court notes that the correct or incorrect substantiation of remedies (or the non-admission of arguments due to late submission) was unrelated to, and unable to justify, the procedural delay in the judicial authorities providing an appropriate response to the action filed by Mr. Jenkins. 117. Regarding the filing of an appeal against the judicial decision to open the case to evidence (supra para. 114.3), the Court notes that Mr. Jenkins was making appropriate use of the appeal recognized by the law applicable to the defense of his interests, a matter that cannot be used against him.116 118. Lastly, regarding the offer of evidence and the alleged late presentation of certain arguments (supra para. 114.4, 114.5 and 114.6), the Court notes that the State has not provided any evidence to prove these points. b.3 Conduct of the state authorities 119. With regard to the third factor, that is, the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court has understood that, to ensure the full effectiveness of a judgment, the judicial authorities must act promptly and without delay117 because the principle of true judicial protection requires that execution procedures are carried out without undue obstruction or delay, in order to achieve their purpose in a prompt, simple and integral manner.118 In the instant case, the Court notes that, as the Commission also indicated, it has no information or the necessary evidence concerning the measures taken by the State from June 8, 2000 – the date on which the action was partially rejected and it was decided to continue the proceedings against the State alone – until April 30, 2007, the date on which National Federal Criminal and Correctional Court No. 9 dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. b.4 General effects on the legal situation of Mr. Jenkins 120. Lastly, in relation to the general effects on the legal situation of Mr. Jenkins, the Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual concerned, it will be necessary for the proceedings to be conducted with greater diligence in order to decide the matter promptly.119 In this case, the Court considers that it has insufficient evidence to rule in this regard. 121. Having analyzed the four factors that determine the reasonableness of the time, the Court concludes that the judicial authorities exceeded a reasonable time in the proceedings and this 115 Cf. Decision of Federal Administrative Court No. 10 of June 8, 2000 (evidence file, folios 4658 to 4660). 116 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs, supra, para. 79. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 105, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 161. 117 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106; Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 250, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 161. 118 119 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra, para. 155, and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 162. 30