Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 131 Hermoza v Peru, and a 12-year delay after the original events in Gomez v Peru.560 In contrast, the Committee has considered that a delay of a little over two years between complaint and judgment did not constitute a violation of Article 14(1) of the ICCPR in circumstances where the proceedings resulted in the author’s reinstatement in his post.561 It should be recalled that the length of the delay, while indicative to a certain extent, is not by itself determinative of whether a trial has been held without undue delay, since there are a number of factors relevant to this question (See also 6.4.1), including the complexity of the case. In Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, an investigation of three and a half years into circumstances surrounding the imposition of sanctions on persons listed on the UN Consolidated List of terrorist entities was found to be justified by the complexity of the dossier and the fact that several investigative measures had to be carried out abroad.562 In contrast, the European Court of Human Rights held in Camasso v Croatia that, even though there was a certain degree of complexity, it was not enough to justify proceedings that lasted six years and eleven months.563 The conduct of the applicant, the conduct of the relevant authorities and subject matter that is at stake for the applicant in the dispute are additional elements of consideration.564 Concerning the conduct of State authorities, the European Court explained that States must organize their legal systems in such a way that their courts can guarantee everyone’s right to obtain a final decision on disputes relating to civil rights and obligations within a reasonable time (See also 6.4).565 In Nogolica v Croatia, proceedings lasting eight years and ten months, with periods of inactivity amounting to more than three years that were solely attributable to the authorities, were found to constitute a breach of Article 6(1) of the ECHR. In Mihajlović v Croatia, a period of seven and a half years, during which the applicants were prevented from having their civil claim determined, was similarly found to violate Article 6(1).566 560 Paraga v Croatia, HRC Communication 727/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/71/D/727/1996 (2001), para 9.7; Muñoz v Spain, HRC Communication 1006/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/79/D/1006/2001 (2003), para 7.1; Hermoza v Peru, HRC Communication 203/1986, CCPR/C/34/D/203/1986 (1988), para 11.3; and Gomez v Peru, HRC Communication 981/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/981/2001 (2003), para 7.3. See also Fei v Colombia, HRC Communication 514/1992, UN Doc CCPR/C/53/D/514/1992 (1995), para 8.4; Filipovich v Lithuania, HRC Communication 875/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/78/D/875/1999 (2003), para 7.1; Perterer v Austria, HRC Communication 1015/2001, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1015/2001 (2004), para 10.7; Pimentel et al. v the Philippines, HRC Communication 1320/2004, UN Doc CCPR/C/89/D/1320/2004 (2007), para 9.2; and Lederbauer v Austria, HRC Communication 1454/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/90/D/1454/2006 (2007), para 8.2. 561 Casanovas v France, HRC Communication 441/1990, UN Doc CCPR/C/51/D/441/1990 (1994), paras 7.3–7.4. 562 Sayadi and Vinck v Belgium, HRC Communication 1472/2006, UN Doc CCPR/C/94/D/1472/2006 (2008), para 10.10. 563 Camasso v Croatia [2005] ECHR 11, para 33 564 Camasso v Croatia [2005] ECHR 11, para 32; Omerovic v Croatia [2006] ECHR 587, para 33; Debelic v Croatia [2006] ECHR 864, para 29; Jankovic v Croatia [2009] ECHR 401, para 67; Nogolica v Croatia [2006] ECHR 1050, para 24 and Plazonić v Croatia [2008] ECHR 198, para 50. 565 Nogolica v Croatia [2006] ECHR 1050, para 27. 566 Mihajlovic v Croatia [2005] ECHR 468, para 44.