G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT could not make any claims on that issue in the present context (in his judicial complaint). 68. The Audiencia Nacional concluded that a causal link could not be established between the actions and omissions of the public authorities and the alleged damage suffered by the applicant. Moreover, it considered that Ms X had been negligent in registering the birth of her children. The Audiencia Nacional stated as follows: “... In the present case, it cannot be said that it is possible to speak of the existence or non-existence of a clear and clean causal relationship between the activity of the public authorities and the result known to have been produced, but rather that, as we shall see, there is a multitude of concurrent circumstances, some voluntary, others forced by reality, others beyond the full control of those intervening in this event, and in the background there is a set of negative circumstances which in one way or another have influenced the final result. In the present case, the actions of the public authorities, in terms of their obligation to comply with their duty to protect minors, have been somewhat less than impressive, not to say non-existent, as it is a minor who was fully under their protection and in respect of whom there was a specific problem, namely the lack of legal identification, owing to the failure to register his birth with a Spanish civil registry. ... [I]n the absence of proof of the decisive influence in the development of the illness suffered by [the applicant], given his childhood and family history and the congenital origin of the illness from which he suffers, the lack of activity on the part of the mother, who bore primary responsibility for ensuring the late registration of the birth of her children but who took more than twelve years to initiate the procedure, and the failure to follow up the procedure initiated for that purpose, mean that the sole direct causal link between the possible harm suffered by [the applicant] and any potential lack of diligence on the part of the public authorities is broken, leading to the conclusion that any harm that may have been caused is not considered to be unlawful and therefore, it is not appropriate to declare the State liable.” 69. On 26 June 2017 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an appeal on points of law (recurso de casación) against the aforementioned judgment given by the Audiencia Nacional. He complained of a breach of the public authorities’ duties to take care of a minor under their guardianship, and of his right to fair proceedings because of the incorrect assessment of the evidence. On 10 November 2017 the Supreme Court declared the appeal inadmissible based on it being unsubstantiated: the Supreme Court considered that the applicant had not sufficiently justified the existence of an objective interest for the purposes of an appeal on points of law (interés casacional objetivo) as required under domestic law. 70. The applicant lodged an amparo appeal with the Constitutional Court, complaining of a violation of his right not to be discriminated against taken together with his right to education, of his right to physical and psychological integrity, and of his right to fair proceedings. The appeal was declared inadmissible on 21 June 2018 based on the lack of constitutional relevance 13