118. Regarding the nature and complexity of the case, the Court notes that in its Judgment of 20 March 2017, the High Court considered that, since the original case file could not be traced, the Court had to rely on a copy of the said file. The Court thus holds in conclusion that the delay noted was not caused by the nature and complexity of the case, but by factors extraneous to the Applicant's will and stemming from the malfunctioning of the Respondent State's judicial system. 119. With regard to the duration of the proceedings and the obligation on the part of the Respondent State's judicial authorities to exercise due diligence, the Court notes that, in the second case, No. 194/2004, a period of ten (10) years, four (4) months and twenty three (23) days had elapsed between 27 October 2006, the date on which the Applicant filed his appeal No. 58/2006, and 20 March 2017, the date on which the High Court rendered its Judgment. The question that arises is whether or not such a timeframe is reasonable. 120. On this point, the Court notes that, according to the record, a period of more than nine (9) years had elapsed between the time the Applicant lodged his appeal and the time he filed the present Application on 19 January 2015; and this was despite the numerous requests determination on the criminal case No. 2017 that the High to the 194/2004.%7 Court finalised the appeal national It was authorities for a only on 20 March proceedings by rendering a Judgment; and this, after this Court had been seized of the present Application 12 1. By the said Judgment, the High Court quashed the conviction and part of the sentence, and acquitted the Applicant. However, this occurred only more than ten (10) years after the filing of the appeal. The 507, § 155. Armand Guéhi v. United Republic of Tanzania State did not (merits and reparations), §722; Lucien Ikili Rashidi v.United Republic of Tanzania (merits and reparations) § 107. 7 See fo otnote 16 above 34 Respondent