cases were not 145. During the public hearing, Respondent claimed that " ... delays in the not make strictly by prosecution, they were instances when the Defence Counsel did there were appearance, there were instances when Defence Counsel was sick, of Appeal, instances when Defence Counsel was appearing before the Court lly you Superior Courts , and what happens when you attend a Superior Court, natura not by the do not attend the lower Court. So these allegations of delay were Respondent ... ". contributed to 146. The Court will therefore examine the extent to which the Applicants the delay. l proceedings 147. The Applicants admit that they filed Applications for stay of crimina the appeal against them. However, the Applications for stay were dismissed, and d for using against that dismissal has been pending. The Applicants cannot be blame procedural avenues that are available to them to secure their freedom Human Rights 148. In Uni6n Alimentaria Sanders SA v. Spain, the European Court of procedural held that the applicant's duty is only to "show diligence in carrying out the himself of steps relevant to him, to refrain from using delaying tactics and to avail 10 the scope afforded by domestic law for shortening the proceedings". e counsel may 149. The Court takes note of the Respondent's arguments that defenc or preferred have played a part in the delays, in that they were sick, did not appear the extent to appear before superior courts in other cases , but does not demonstrate er they to which this action of defence counsel delayed the proceedings or wheth this Court to deliberately wanted to delay proceedings. There is no evidence before ndent, was indicate that any of the action of the defence as narrated by the Respo aimed at stalling the process. 1o Judgme nt of 7 July 1989, Applica tion 11681/8 5, § 35 43