unreasonable duration7, this possibility is still only in the sphere of theoretical discussion and has not materialized in practice.8 35. In consideration of this analysis, the Commission finds that the State did not successfully demonstrate that the action for damages was the appropriate one to establish the alleged responsibility of the State for the unreasonable duration of judicial proceedings. In its Advisory Opinion No. 9/87, the Inter-American Court indicated, referring to the requirement of previous exhaustion of domestic remedies, that “it is not sufficient that [the remedy] be provided for by the Constitution or the law or whatever may make it formally admissible, but rather it is required to be appropriate to establish whether a violation has been caused to human rights and to prove whatever be necessary to resolve it.”9 As has been established, the action for damages appears to be theoretically possible according to Argentinean doctrine, but not feasible given jurisprudential practice. 36. As follows from the analysis, the Commission concludes that Mr. Spoltore pursued the appropriate procedural avenues for the case being processed and, considering this, it should be noted that both the Commission and the Court have expressed that “the rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action in support of the defenseless victim ineffective.” 10 The IACHR observes that, following the recorded delay in the labor proceeding, it would not be reasonable to demand that the petitioner exhaust an additional series of remedies. This would 7 In various cases, and as raised by the State, attempts have been made to infer this possibility from the general principle of responsibility of the State for the actions or omissions committed by civil servants in the exercise of their functions established by Article 1112 of the National Civil Code which indicates that “The actions and omissions of public servants in the exercise of their functions, for not complying but in an unlawful way with the legal obligations charged to them, are included in the regulations of this title.” 8 In various cases, and as raised by the State, attempts have been made to infer this possibility from the general principle of responsibility of the State for the actions or omissions committed by civil servants in the exercise of their functions established by Article 1112 of the National Civil Code which indicates that “The actions and omissions of public servants in the exercise of their functions, for not complying but in an unlawful way with the legal obligations charged to them, are included in the regulations of this title.” 9 I/A Court H.R., Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 y 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6,1987. Series A No. 9, Para. 24. 10 I/A Court H.R, Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C, No. 1, paragraph 93; I/A Court H.R, Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No. 2, paragraph 92; I/A Court H.R, Godínez-Cruz Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C., No. 3, paragraph 95.