Counsel for the parties in the civil case, who requested that the rights of his clients be reserved till production of a final medical report; that on three occasions, that is, on 12 and 27 october, 2016, and 30 November, 2016, the Applicants failed to show up at the court hearing on the issue of reparation. The Respondent State infers that it is in no way involved in procedural intricacies. 36.|n their Reply to the Respondent State's Response, the Applicants point out that the public hearings of 12 and 27 October, 2016 and that of 30 November 2016 , at which they did not appear, were subsequent to the referral to this Court. They further stated that the abnormality of the duration of the procedure should be assessed from the time the case was referred to this court. *** 37.The Court reaffirms that, to determine whether or not the duration of a procedure is reasonable, it must take into account the circumstances of the case and of the procedure; and as such the, "determination as to whether the duration of the procedure in respect of local remedies has been normal or abnormal should be carried out on a case-by-case basis depending on the circumstances of each case.a', 38. On this point, the Court's analysis takes into account, in particular, the complexity of the case or the related procedure, the behaviour of the Parties themsetves and that of the judicial authorities to determine if the latter "has been passive or clearly negligent."s 39.!n the instant case, the questions at issue are whether the domestic procedure in respect of the Applicants' case is complicated or whether the parties helped to speed up the said procedure; and more still, whether the judicial authorities showed proof of negligence or inadmissible delays. a See Application No. 013t2011, Judgment of 28t3t2014. Beneficiaries Othersv. Burkina Fasq $ g2 hfip://www.african-court.org 5 of The Late Norbert Zongo and see Matter of Dobbertjn v. France, Judgment of 25 February,.1993, s6rie A, No. 256-D $ 44. r. coe. int htto://h udoc. ech 9 ,94