Chapter vi  Equality of Arms and Rights to a Fair Hearing 127 undue delay.527 In Kudła v Poland, the European Court of Human Rights went even further and, for the first time, held there was a violation of Article 13 (the right to effective remedy) in that the applicant had no domestic remedy whereby he could enforce his right to a hearing within a reasonable time.528 As the Court put it: “Due to the growing frequency with which violations in this regard are being found, the Court has drawn attention on to the important danger that exists for the rule of law within national legal orders when excessive delays in the administration of justice occur in respect of which litigants have no domestic remedy.”529 6.4.1 Procedural delays and postponement of hearings Procedural delays in the conduct of criminal and non-criminal proceedings may occur for a variety of reasons. Neither the Human Rights Committee nor the European Court of Human Rights has defined benchmarks applicable to all cases. What constitutes reasonable time is a matter of assessment in each particular case.530 The Human Rights Committee and European Court of Human Rights have had regard to the following as being relevant to the reasonableness or otherwise of any delay in the disposal of proceedings, although this list should not be treated as exhaustive: • the complexity of the legal issues being determined;531 • the nature of the facts to be established;532 • the number of accused persons, or parties in civil proceedings, and witnesses giving evidence;533 • the conduct of the accused or any of the parties to civil proceedings, including whether or not adjournments were requested by them or delay tactics adopted;534 • the length of each individual stage of the proceeding;535 527 Zimmermann and Steiner v Switzerland [1983] ECHR 9, paras 30–32; Bottazzi v Italy [1999] ECHR 62, para 22. 528 Kudła v Poland [2000] ECHR 512, para 160. 529 Kudła v Poland [2000] ECHR 512, para 148. See also, Bottazzi v Italy [1999] ECHR 62, para 22; Di Mauro v Italy [1999] ECHR 63, para 23; Ferrari v Italy [1999] ECHR 64, para 21. 530 UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR General Comment 32 (2007), para 35; Obermeier v Austria [1990] ECHR 15, para 72; and Angelucci v Italy [1991] ECHR 6, para 15 (under the heading “As to the Law”). 531 Deisl v Austria, HRC Communication 1060/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1060/2002 (2004), paras 11.2–11.6. 532 Triggiani v Italy [1991] ECHR 20, para 17 (under the heading “As to the Law”). 533 Angelucci v Italy [1991] ECHR 6, para 15 (under the heading “As to the Law”). 534 Unión Alimentaria Sanders S. A. v Spain [1989] ECHR 16, para 35; Eckle v Germany [1982] ECHR 4, para 82; Cagas v Philippines , HRC Communication 788/1999, UN Doc CCPR/C/73/D/788/1997 (2001), para 7.4; Kelly v Jamaica, HRC Communication 253/1987, UN Doc CCPR/C/41/D/253/1987 (1991), para 5.11; Johnson v Jamaica, HRC Communication 588/1994, UN Doc CCPR/C/56/D/588/1994 (1996), para 8.9; Yasseen and Thomas v Guyana , HRC Communication 676/1996, UN Doc CCPR/C/62/D/676/1996 (1998), para 7.11; Sextus v Trinidad and Tobago, HRC Communication 818/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998 (2001), para 7.3; Hendricks v Guyana, HRC Communication 838/1998, UN Doc CCPR/C/76/D/838/1998 (2002), para 6.3; and Siewpersaud, Sukhram, and Persaud v Trinidad and Tobago, HRC Communication 938/2000, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/938/2000 (2004), para 6.2 535 Deisl v Austria, HRC Communication 1060/2002, UN Doc CCPR/C/81/D/1060/2002 (2004), paras 11.2–11.6.