8 29. Non-compliance with the “reasonable time” to close a proceeding and impose a sanction has been noted in the instant case, non-compliance that would undermine due process of law. This problem has been analyzed from the point of view of the proceeding itself, which ends with a court decision, as well as from the point of view of the execution of the punishment for which such final decision is an enforceable order. There has been no consideration by the Court of the procedural nature the execution may have, or in a different light, the applicability to it of the principles inherent in criminal due process. 30. It is evident that the disregard of the reasonable time remains a crucial problem for criminal justice, the reforms of which have been ineffective in sufficiently and definitely addressing the need for a brief, diligent and expeditious administration of justice. Now then, in the circumstances of the case sub judice it is apparent that the Inter-American Court could not deem that punishment by flogging, in itself unlawful, should have been administered without delay —in accordance with the provisions of domestic law— in order to conform to due process requirements. The punishment is flagrantly illegitimate, irrespective of the delay and the date chosen to impose and inflict it. The delay contra legem does not originate a violation; rather it exposes its existence and aggravates its consequences. IV. CONDITIONS OF ARREST 31. It is also notorious, in relation to the facts in the instant case, the persistence of a major problem in the field of criminal justice, constantly observed in a large number of cases submitted to the contentious jurisdiction of this Court and even analyzed in some consultative opinions. I am referring to the conditions of arrest existent in the vast majority of prisons —whether adult or juvenile institutions— which are entirely incompatible with the American Convention and with the so-called international “standards” on this matter, described in several global and regional documents, especially after the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (Geneva, 1995) which have been with us for half a century now, and despite being widely known they are frequently ignored. Once again, reality has rebelled against the law. Speeches and facts go different ways. 32. Based on the prevailing circumstances —as evidenced by the judgments of the Inter-American Court and by several provisional measures ordered by the Court— and on the notion, stated by this Court on several occasions, regarding the role of the State as guarantor with respect to the persons in custody —adults or juveniles, healthy or ill— it becomes apparent that there is a pressing need to embark as soon as possible on a comprehensive and true reform of the arrest systems. This includes laws, measures, facilities, security personnel and alternatives to imprisonment, among others. Certainly, the paradoxes and deficiencies of imprisonment are many. To which must be added, worsening the state of affairs before us, the recurrent or constant violation of rules which, if observed, could contribute at least a somewhat acceptable arrest system. 33. It has been asserted, on abundant evidence, that correctional facilities are usually the scene of constant, systematic and deep-rooted violations of human rights, which also are frequently of the most serious nature. In this regard, it is important to look back on a large number of judgments or orders regarding provisional measures pronounced in the past few years, such as Urso Branco Prison, Juvenile Reeducation Institute, Bulacio, Neira Alegría, Mendoza Prisons, Lori Berenson, Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al., etc. The judgment on the Case of