that the judicial authorities were under a duty to exercise exceptional diligence in a proceeding involving a person infected with the AIDS virus, having regard to the incurable nature of the disease from which he was suffering and his reduced life expectancy 336. Likewise, in the cases of Codarcea v. Romania and Jablonska v. Poland, the European Court considered that, in view of the applicant’s old age, the courts should display particular diligence in processing the case.337 196. The Court further recalls that the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, mentioned previously (supra para. 137), contains rules on the importance of effective access to justice for persons with disabilities “on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations” (Preamble and Art. 13.1). Thus, the Court considers that when vulnerable persons are involved, as in the case of a person with disabilities, it is imperative to take the pertinent actions, such as ordering the authorities to give priority to addressing and settling such cases, in order to avoid delays in their processing so as to ensure a prompt decision and execution thereof. 197. In the instant case, the Court finds that the evidence on file confirms Sebastián Furlan’s serious health and mental condition caused by the accident and his subsequent need for medical and psychological care (supra paras. 73, 74, 76, 77, 95, 96 and 111). Moreover, it is proven that Sebastián Furlan and his family did not have sufficient financial resources to provide him with the medical and psychiatric treatment recommended throughout those years (supra para. 71). In this regard, based on the treatment ordered by the doctors who examined him during the judicial proceeding, expert witness Dr. Estela del Carmen Rodriguez pointed out that although Sebastián Furlan reached legal age during the course of the civil suit “if the recommended treatment and neuro-cognitive therapy had been provided in time, [it is] likely that his functions and life quality would be better now.”338 She added that Sebastián Furlan “did not receive the necessary treatment with the applicant in the proceedings in question. Not only were they decisive for her future relations with her own child, but they had a particular quality of irreversibility […] In cases of this kind the authorities are under a duty to exercise exceptional diligence”). 336 Cf. ECHR, Case of X. v. France, (No. 18020/91), Judgment of 31 March 1992, para. 47 (“This Court takes the view that what was at stake in the contested proceedings was of crucial importance for the applicant, having regard to the incurable disease from which he was suffering and his reduced life expectancy” […] In short, exceptional diligence was called for in this instance, notwithstanding the number of cases which were pending, in particular as it was a controversy the facts of which the Government had been familiar with for some months and the seriousness of which must have been obvious to them.”). Similarly, ECHR, Case of A and others v. Denmark (No. 20826/92), Judgment of 22 January 1996, para. 78 (“The Court shares the Commission's opinion that what was at stake in the proceedings was of crucial importance for Mr. A, Mr. Eg, Mr. C, Mr. D, Mr. E, Mr. F and the son of Mr. and Mrs. G in view of the incurable disease from which they were suffering and their reduced life expectancy, as was sadly illustrated by the fact that Mr. C, Mr. F and the son of Mr. and Mrs. G died of AIDS before the case was set down for trial. Accordingly, insofar as concerns the first eight applicants, the competent administrative and judicial authorities were under a positive obligation under Article 6 para. 1 […] to act with the exceptional diligence required by the Court's case-law in disputes of this nature”). 337 Cf. ECHR. Case of Jablonská v. Poland, (No.60225/00), Judgment of 9 March 2004, Final, June 9, 2004, para. 43 (“Having regard to all the relevant circumstances and, more particularly, to the fact that in view of the applicant’s old age – she was already 71 years old when the litigation started – the Polish courts should have displayed particular diligence in handling her case”), and Case of Codarcea v. Romania, (No. 31675/04), Judgment of June 2, 2009, Final, September 2, 2009, para. 89. Also, Case of Styranowski v. Poland, (No. 28616/95), Judgment of 30 October 1998), para. 57 (“Therefore, in view of his age, the proceedings were of undeniable importance for him. Accordingly, what was at stake for the applicant called for an expeditious decision on his claim.), and Case of Krzak v. Poland, (No. 51515/99) Judgment of 6 April 6, 2004, Final, July 7, 2004, para. 42. 338 Affidavit rendered by Doctor Estela del Carmen Rodríguez on February 10, 2012 (file on Merits, volume II, page 763). 63