26. Moreover, “this reinforced standard” in Furlan led, in the context of a reasonable time, on the one hand, to a detailed analysis of the fourth element in evaluating a reasonable time; in other words, “the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it,” 39 a criterion that the European Court of Human Rights had identified as “an exceptionally diligent action since emphasis is placed on what was [or is] at stake.” 40 Although those standards were developed in the context of the substantiation of the proceedings and not during the stage of execution, the same guidelines, mutatis mutandis, may be applied to the stage of execution of judicial and administrative decisions. 27. In its judgment, the Court affirmed that the “reinforced standard of expeditiousness,” which it had already incorporated in Muelle, 41 in the case of older persons derives its justification from the vulnerability of this group and, therefore, is a general principle of international law. The relevance of accentuating this criterion that the Court has established for older persons is not insignificant, since it finds its justification in the fact that this group suffers different afflictions and in a differentiated manner, and due to the particularities at this stage of their lives, establishing access to justice must be a priority as much for the individual as for the possible rights that might be in play in each specific case. 28. As we have seen in this section, the Court’s jurisprudential evolution -which was also a latent scenario in all of the international law of human rights- has gone from a panorama that did not place special attention on the “age” of the victims as a determining factor permeating the analysis of a specific case to the point of recognizing for older persons an international principle that should govern the actions of judicial and administrative bodies that are called upon to hear and to materialize the rights of persons who belong to this age group. III. WAGES AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE RIGHT TO WORK 29. In my opinion in Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala, I recounted how the right to work had evolved from Lagos del Campo (2017) to the Guatemalan case in 2021, to which I now refer. 42 The instant judgment, however, develops another facet that has not been considered by the Court’s jurisprudence: the right to the payment of a salary, in accordance with the international corpus iuris in the matter. 43 30. The Court, in this judgment, specified that the concept of “remuneration” arises from the fact that “the right to work also implies receiving a fair wage, which, in turn, must include all of the emoluments that are included in the term remuneration.” 44 The Court’s judgment in this case is supported by the European Social Charter, which states that “4. […] the right of workers to a remuneration such as will give them and their families a decent standard of Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merit, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 194. 40 In Furlan, the Court indicated that: ”195. The European Court of Human Rights has, on several occasions, used this criterion in the analysis of a reasonable time. Indeed, in the case of H. v. The United Kingdom, the Court placed special emphasis on the importance of “what was at stake” for the applicant and determined that the result of the proceeding in question had a particular quality of irreversibility. Therefore, in cases of this kind, the authorities are under the duty to exercise exceptional diligence. Moreover, in the case of X. v. France, the Court indicated that the judicial authorities were under a duty to exercise exceptional diligence in a proceeding involving a person infected with AIDS virus, having regard to the incurable nature of the disease from which he was suffering and the reduced life expectancy. Likewise, in the cases of Codarcea v. Romania and Jablonska v. Poland, the European Court considered that, in view of the victim’s old age, the courts should apply exceptional diligence in processing the case.” 41 See supra, para. 17 of this opinion. 42 See paras. 9 to 13 of the opinion presented in Former Employees of the Judiciary v. Guatemala. 43 Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Perú. Preliminary Objections, Merits, and Reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022, para. 108. 44 Ibidem. 39 7