79 these criteria, why it has required the time that has passed to deal with the case and, if it does not do so, the Court has broad attributes to draw its own conclusions in this regard. 313 256. In this case, the appeal for nullification was filed on April 17, 2007 (supra para. 107) and is halted at the evidentiary stage since June 2008 (supra para. 111) so that more than seven years have passed since the start of the proceedings. Consequently, the Court will determine whether the time that has elapsed is reasonable based on the criteria established in its case law. a) The complexity of the matter Arguments of the Commission and of the parties 257. Regarding the complexity of the case, the Commission indicated that the numerous allegations filed in the appeal for nullification “involved a certain degree of complexity when the time came to decide the case, although none of the points raised by RCTV would appear to require an especially demanding examination of the evidence, with the possible exception of the arguments concerning the availability of frequencies other than RCTV’s to accomplish the objectives of the National Telecommunications Plan.” 258. The representatives argued that “to date, no particularly complex incident or circumstance had arisen in the proceedings that would excuse the prolonged delay and require the proceedings to be held up; moreover, the judicial authorities are not observed to be acting diligently; rather, to the contrary, their conduct is marked by passivity and inaction.” 259. The State presented no specific arguments on this point. Considerations of the Court 260. This Court has taken diverse criteria into account to determine the complexity of a case. They include the complexity of the evidence, the plurality of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time that has passed since the violation, the characteristics of the remedy established in domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. 314 261. The Court considers that, in this case, there is no record of the existence of elements that represent a level of complexity that would justify the delay of more than seven years to decide the administrative remedy seeking nullification. Even though numerous arguments were presented, the Court stresses that the proceedings are halted at the evidentiary stage since 2008, without the State submitting arguments concerning the existence of any element that signifies a particular complexity. b) The procedural activity of the interested party Arguments of the Commission and of the parties Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 14, 2014. Series C No. 287, para. 506. Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156 and Case of López Mendoza v. Venezuela. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2011. Series C No. 233, para. 162. 313 Cf. inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 78, and Case of Argüelles et al. v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2014. Series C No. 288, para. 190. 314