the decision; or when, for any reason, the alleged victim is denied access to a judicial remedy.124 147. Additionally, with regard to the amparo proceeding, the Court has held that Article 25.1 of the American Convention reflects said “procedural institution (…) known as ‘amparo,’ which is a simple and prompt remedy designed for the protection of all of the rights recognized by the constitutions and laws of the States Parties and by the Convention.”125 The Court also established that the guarantee applies “not only to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or laws.”126 The IACHR has also held that an amparo appeal can constitute an adequate remedy for purposes of requesting medical care for persons with HIV/AIDS.127 148. In the matter before us, the Commission notes that on July 26, 2002, an amparo claim was brought with the Constitutional Court for the State to provide health care treatment to persons with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala. Preliminarily, the IACHR remarks that said claim was filed by thirteen of the victims in the instant case, as well as by different organizations, including some of the petitioners. The Commission also notes that said claim sought for the decision of the Constitutional Court to have an erga omnes effect to make it extensive to all persons living with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala. In this regard, the IACHR finds that because of the way in which the amparo claim was brought, a ruling in the claimants’ favor could have effects on all persons with HIV/AIDS in Guatemala. Accordingly, the filing and outcome of this amparo suit not only affected the thirteen victims who signed it but also all of the victims of the instant case, except for de Alberto Quiché Cuvexa, who passed away in 2001, that is, prior to the filing of the claim. 149. As for the guarantees that the State must take into account when remedies are pursued involving persons with HIV, the Commission has established that judicial authorities must act with special diligence in processing and ruling on any claims that are filed.128 Additionally, the European Court has emphasized the importance of processing on an expedited basis this type of case because of the nature of the disease.129 A delay in the process can become illusory the purpose of the remedy130. The European Court has also stressed the special diligence that must be followed by judicial officials,131 even in cases with a certain level of complexity.132 150. In the instant case, the Commission notes firstly that the amparo claim was filed in July 2002 and was resolved in January 2003. The Commission finds that in the circumstances of the instant case, where it is obvious that there has been a total lack of enforcement of the General Law to Combat HIV and AIDS, the State has not provided an explanation for the delay of six months to rule on a remedy, which because of its very nature must be expeditious and, because of the issue involved, must be processed and resolved with exceptional diligence. 124 IA Court of HR, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, par. 24 125 IA Court of HR, Habeas Corpus in Emergency Situations (Articles 27.2, 25.1 and 7.6 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-8/87 of January 30, 1987. Series A No. 8, par. 32. 126 IA Court of HR, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, par. 23. 127 IACHR, Report No. 27/09, Case 12.249, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al, El Salvador, March 20, 2009, par. 42. 128 ECHR, Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992, par. 47. 129 ECHR. Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992, par. 47. 130 ECHR. Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992, par. 47. 131 ECHR. Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992, par. 47. 132 ECHR. Case of F.E. vs. France. Application 60/1998/963/1178. Judgment of October 30, 1998. 36