18 necessary measures to develop a general policy of comprehensive protection for older persons.96 57. The second case in which the Inter-American Court has referred to the situation of older persons directly and specifically is precisely the case of Muelle Flores, in which in addition to addressing the violations of a social right, the Court introduces some important standards with regard to older persons from a perspective of the failure to execute judgments. III. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE OF MUELLE FLORES FOR INTER-AMERICAN CASE LAW: THE OBLIGATION OF “EXCEPTIONAL DUE DILIGENCE” 58. The rights that have been addressed in the preceding sections — the right to social security, the right to property and the right to an effective judicial remedy – have a special impact in this specific case. The judgment indicates that “[r]egarding a reasonable time at the stage of execution of judgment, the Court emphasizes that this time should be shorter owing to the existence of a final decision on the specific matter. It is inadmissible that a proceeding on execution of judgment should temporarily alter a decision issued in a final judgment or in any other way undermine it or render it ineffective, excessively or indefinitely prolonging a dispute that has already been settled. This acquires greater relevance in a proceeding on execution of judgment in which the right to social security has been recognized in the domestic sphere […].”97 59. In such cases, the rights involved in the domestic judgments that recognize human rights – such as the right to social security — must be analyzed from the perspective of the special promptness of the reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention for the execution of the judgment. As established in the case law of the InterAmerican Court, this is especially important in relation to the effects caused on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings. The Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on an individual’s legal situation, the proceedings must move forward with greater diligence so that the case is decided promptly.98 Although, in its judgment, the Inter-American Court refers to this obligation as “advancing with greater diligence” or “greater promptness,” this obligation has also been identified as “exceptional due diligence.” 60. Regarding the reasonableness of the time in cases involving violations of the rights of a person who is in a vulnerable situation, the European Court of Human Rights has indicated that the authorities should act with exceptional diligence.99 Thus, the judicial authorities should act with exceptional diligence in proceedings that involve individuals who, owing to their specific conditions, require immediate attention; for example, people living with HIV/AIDS Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, fifteenth and sixteenth operative paragraphs. 96 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 157. 97 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155 and Case of Pacheco León et al. v. Honduras. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 15, 2017. Series C No. 342, para. 120. 98 Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 195; and ECHR, Case of H. v. The United Kingdom, No. 9580/81, Judgment of July 8, 1987, para. 85. 99