CCPR/C/130/D/2780/2016 9. The authors asked the lawyer who had been in the wrong to cover the overpayment after the 1993 decision, because they were not represented at the hearing and had no one to defend their interests. The Court of Appeal of Nîmes did not rule on that claim until 18 January 2001, but then confirmed the judgment of 17 November 1997, in which the lawyer and his insurer had been ordered jointly and severally to pay the authors compensation. 10. On 20 October 2000, the authors sent the tenant an order for payment of the unpaid rent, but her eviction was not ordered by the Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence until 6 September 2005. The tenant did not vacate the premises until 31 March 2007. 11. The reasonableness of the length of judicial proceedings should be assessed on a caseby-case basis, taking into account the complexity of the case, the conduct of the respondent and the way in which the administrative and judicial authorities acted. 12. It is clear, although the different proceedings were complex, that they were indeed prolonged, lasting for 26 years, with various twists and turns, with several decisions favourable to the authors, while others, being unfavourable, had to be challenged. 13. I would therefore have concluded that the domestic administrative and judicial authorities bear a significant proportion of the responsibility for the excessive length of the proceedings, which ended with the authors losing their home, and would thus consider that the State party violated the authors’ rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 16 GE.21-01892