G.T.B. v. SPAIN JUDGMENT accordance with the law. The delays, which had occurred because of the nature of the procedure and of the attitude of Ms X as a person responsible for requesting the registration, could not be attributed to the authorities. 106. In any event, the Government emphasised that the public prosecutor’s office had made several requests for information to the civil registries in order to find out the status of the procedure. The authorities had asked Ms X to submit many documents or other proof of the relationship between them, had carried out an investigation, and had tried to obtain evidence through the Mexican consulate. 107. The Government argued that the public authorities could not be asked to do more than they had done in order to expedite the procedure for the applicant to obtain his papers, and that no violation of his right to private life could be found in the present case. 108. The Government also argued that the applicant’s right to an education had never been compromised, and that the public authorities, far from preventing him from studying, had provided support and allowed him to enrol each time he had wished to do so in different schools, even if he subsequently had not attended. 109. As for damage, the Government did not dispute that the applicant had developed a psychological condition but argued that it could not be attributed to the acts or omissions of the Spanish public authorities. His own actions, such as drug consumption from the age of seven, as well as his family context, notably his mother’s behaviour and the family’s medical history had had a fundamental impact on his situation. 110. The Government also emphasised that the forensic and medical reports submitted by the applicant did not disclose the existence of a direct causal link between his lack of identity documents and his psychological suffering; they merely indicated that he blamed his problems on that lack of identification. In the Government’s view, the Audiencia Nacional had been very clear in its reasoning as to why the applicant’s psychological condition could not be attributed to the authorities. 111. In the Government’s view, the applicant was presenting a very biased and incomplete version of the assessment of the evidence. The domestic judgments, in particular that of the Audiencia Nacional of 22 May 2017, had been neither arbitrary nor manifestly incorrect. 2. The Court’s assessment (a) General principles 112. The Court reiterates that the concept of private life covers the physical and psychological integrity of a person and may embrace multiple aspects of the person’s physical and social identity (see Denisov v. Ukraine [GC], no. 76639/11, § 95, 25 September 2018, and S. and Marper v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04, § 66, ECHR 29