allegations which, if proven, may tend to characterize possible violations of the rights guaranteed by the Convention. In this regard, the Commission has competence to analyze the complaint, in light of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American. 43. From the information and arguments presented by the petitioner, it is seen that the main complaint regards the excessive time taken to conduct the trial of the petitioner’s labor suit, which was filed on June 30, 1988 against his former employer, Cacique Camping S.A. The Commission observes that the judgment was not handed down by Labor Tribunal No. 3 until June 3, 1997, which is nine years after the suit was filed. 44. The Commission also notes that on September 16, 1997, Mr. Spoltore lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires accusing Labor Tribunal No. 3 of negligence and unnecessary delay; this matter was resolved on April 16, 1999. Furthermore, on September 2, 1997, the petitioner filed the domestic remedies contemplated in Argentine legislation to dispute a judgment by a labor court. These were decided on August 16, 2000. Upon reviewing these time frames, the Commission observes that more than 12 years transpired between the time that the labor suit was filed and the time that the Argentine legal system issued its final ruling. 45. It should be pointed out that in its decision of April 16, 1999, the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires had concluded that two irregularities existed regarding the time it took to conduct the trial. The Supreme Court indicated that “… from what is reflected on the record … it can be proven that the following irregularities existed: I) Delay in remitting the case to the Office of Expert Advice … and II) delay in the preparation, signing, and sealing of the notification documents.” For this reason, the Supreme Court determined to “reprimand the Clerk of Court of Labor Tribunal No. 3 of San Isidro.” 11 46. The Commission notes that if the information and arguments presented regarding the excessive time that transpired during the labor proceedings are proven, they may constitute a violation of the right to prompt recourse to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the Convention, and of the right to a fair trial established to Article 8(1). These will be evaluated in the merits phase. 47. Consequently, the Commission concludes that in this case the petitioners have lodged complaints which, if they meet other requirements and are proven to be true, may tend to establish violations of rights protected by the American Convention; to wit, those set forth in Articles 8(1) (right to a 11 This ruling is annexed to the petition.