case files be remanded. 41 The case was sent back to the lower court in October 2007. 42 40. In May 2008, 43 Mr. Boleso submitted a principle settlement plan, which was approved on September 25, 2008. 44 On the following December 12, Mr. Boleso opened an administrative file before the Office of the Public Prosecutor for collecting the amount claimed, under the auspices of Law 5689 of the Province of Corrientes, which consolidates the debts of the provincial state. 45 After the collection proceedings were initiated, Mr. Boleso's representative requested that the proceedings move forward. 46 41. On March 4, 2011 the provincial state made the judicial deposit of $92,016.30 Argentine pesos, which was collected by the alleged victim on June 1, 2011. 47 The amount paid to Mr. Boleso corresponds to the settlement paid to him and includes the payment of the principal through that date plus accrued interest. 48 VII MERITS 42. This case involves alleged violations of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection of Héctor Hugo Boleso, alleged by the Inter-American Commission, as a consequence of the delay in deciding on a writ ofamparo filed to guarantee the inviolability of his remuneration as a judge. The representatives further alleged a violation of the right to equal protection set forth in Article 21 of the Convention. To resolve this matter, the Court will now analyze (1) the alleged violations of due process and judicial protection and (2) the alleged violations of Mr. Boleso's right to property. VII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION, 49 READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 1(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 43. The Commission recalled that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the American Convention are not limited to criminal proceedings, and that they include the right to a decision within a reasonable period of time, which must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the proceedings. It indicated that the State's explanation for the various excusals of judges and the need to appoint co-judges is not sufficient to justify a delay such as the one 41 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Judgment B. 96. XLII, September 4, 2007 (evidence file, folio 1755). Cf. Remand of the proceedings "Boleso Héctor Hugo v. State of the Province of Corrientes," October 10, 2007 (evidence file, folio 3473). 42 43 Cf. Written statement “principle and interest worksheet" of May 8, 2008 (evidence file, folio 3517). 44 Cf. Eleventh Civil and Commercial Court of Corrientes, Order of September 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 3539). 45 Cf. Law 5,689 of the Province of Corrientes (evidence file, folios 69 to 70). Cf. Document “PROCESSING URGENTLY NEEDED" presented by Mr. César G. Correa D'Alessandro, Mr. Boleso's attorney-in-fact, February 3, 2009 (evidence file, folio 84). 46 47 Cf. Document "FULL AND FINAL PAYMENT REPORT. REQUEST FOR CHECK," March 4, 2011 (evidence file, folio 107). 48 Cf. Document "Principle and interest worksheet. Petitioner granted preferential dispatch," May 8, 2008 (evidence file, folio 3517) and document “Calculation Methodology" (evidence file, folio 3533). 49 Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. 11