that occurred in this case, in a process that by its nature should be quick. It also argued that the decrease in judges’ remuneration and the delay in the amparo process both involve aspects that are of concern from the perspective of protecting judicial independence. It therefore concluded that the State did not comply with the guarantee of a reasonable period of time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention. The Commission also ask for a declaration of a violation of Article 25 of the Convention. 44. The representatives argued that the State violated the guarantee of reasonable period of time. They recalled that Article 43 of the Argentine Constitution classifies the writ of amparo as expeditious and quick. They stated that the legal claim made by Mr. Boleso was neither difficult nor complex, and did not require any evidence-gathering, plus the process only involved one plaintiff. In addition, the Supreme Court of Justice had already established precedents on the subject in its case law. Regarding the alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention, they argued that the State had failed to comply with the standards on its obligation to provide mechanisms guaranteeing a simple and prompt remedy. They also argued that the State violated Mr. Boleso's right to judicial guarantees with respect to the principles of suitability, jurisdiction, and judicial independence due to the fact that the cojudge who ruled on the writ of amparo in the lower court was not qualified to act as judge— something that is clear from the outcome of his ruling—and that the judges comprising the court that adopted decision 302 of 2000 were appointed by decree, without the Senate's approval. They additionally argued that Mr. Boleso was the victim of discrimination in comparison to the other judges who, unlike him, obtained a response favorable to their interests in similar actions. 45. The State acknowledged that a total of 21 years had elapsed from the filing of the amparo until the collection of the claim. However, it held that although the matter was not complex in terms of its substance, it was complex in operational terms. Thus, since it involved aspects that were in the interests of all judges, it prevented them from being involved, leading to the delay in forming the court that would rule on the matter. It indicated that 37 judges recused themselves from the process, which had a significant impact on its length. It recalled that, while the principle of reasonable period of time requires swift judicial proceedings, it also requires the proper administration of justice, leading to the appointment of associate judges. It also addressed the impact that the duration of the proceedings had on the alleged victim’s situation and emphasized that although the delay in itself impacts the person, in this case, the impact was not explicitly harmful. It underscored that Mr. Boleso is not a member of a vulnerable group and that the representatives did not prove their allegations as to the impacts of the delay in the decision. On the contrary, it noted that Mr. Boleso remained a provincial judge until 2021, when he retired, and while he served as a judge, he received his salary without interruption. B. Considerations of the Court 46. The Court reiterates that the right to judicial guarantees means that the resolution of the matter must be produced within a reasonable period of time, as a prolonged delay can, in certain cases, constitute in itself a violation of this right. The Court has also established that evaluation of the reasonable period of time must be conducted for each specific case with regard to the total length of the process, including the appeals that may be filed. 50 Four elements must therefore be taken into account in determining compliance with the guarantee of a reasonable period of time, namely: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Olivera Fuentes v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment dated February 4, 2023. Series C No. 484, para. 126. 50 12