G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT not claim the status of victim, given that the events which he was complaining about were largely due to the behaviour of his then legal representative (his mother). 90. The applicant contended that it had not been Ms X’s behaviour that had impeded his registration for years, but the obstacles put in place by the public authorities. He claimed to be a victim of a violation of his right and hence to have victim status. 2. The Court’s assessment 91. Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court notes that in his amparo appeal the applicant complained of all the consequences he suffered as a result of the impugned events and thus raised in substance the complaint now brought before the Court. 92. The Court therefore dismisses the Government’s objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 93. Concerning the Government’s objection about victim status, the Court considers that the question whether the delay and the problems in registering the applicant’s birth and issuing his ID card were imputable to the public authorities’ acts and omissions or to the applicant’s and/or his mother’s behaviour is in reality a submission on the merits of the case. Consequently, it should be examined as part of the Court’s analysis on the merits of the case. B. Merits 1. The parties’ submissions (a) The applicant 94. The applicant’s complaint was twofold. Firstly, he complained that the public authorities had never initiated or pursued the procedure for him to have his birth registered when they should have done so, given that he had been a minor and under the public authorities’ guardianship during certain periods. Secondly, he argued that the delay in having his birth registered had been caused by the constant and unnecessary obstacles created by the public authorities in requesting documents and information known to be unavailable. 95. As to the first part of his complaint, the applicant submitted that from 29 December 1989 until 15 January 1991, when he had been left in a children’s foster centre in the care of the public authorities after being voluntary given up by his mother, it had been the Canary Islands’ public authorities that had exercised guardianship over him, and they had not taken any steps to initiate the registration of his birth or to issue him with an ID card. He also observed that from 2000 until 2006, during the different periods in which he had been serving correctional measures following his criminal convictions by the juvenile courts, the Directorate General for Protection of 25