iv. Effect generated by the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding 179. The Court notes that while in the present case Mr. López Mendoza had a special interest in the swiftness of the issuance of the decision to be able to run in the November 2008 election, the situation itself would not be enough to justify the judicial authorities sacrificing the proper development of the proceeding and the determination of constitutionality of the standard which, in short, had general effects that go beyond the particular interests of the alleged victim. Thus, the Court notes that "the interests of the person concerned, regarding that a decision be issued soon as possible, must be balanced against the need for a careful examination of the case and an appropriate execution of the procedures.”258 180. Given the foregoing, the Court considers that the State has justified that the time the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice took to resolve the constitutionality challenge filed by the victim is in conformity with the principle of reasonable time. 4. Judicial Protection and Effectiveness of the remedy 4.1. Arguments of the parties 181. The Commission found that the appeals filed by the victim in the domestic jurisdiction, "in practice, were ineffective" given that the decisions reached by the various courts, "repeatedly dismissing claims related to the compatibility of Article 105 the LOCGRSNCF, for purely procedural grounds or on the basis that it is historically enshrined in Venezuelan law [,] confirm the ineffectiveness of providing a remedy for a violation” of Article 23 of the American Convention. The Commission added that "both the PoliticalAdministrative Chamber and the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice, dismissed the appeals without providing an effective response regarding the use of administrative means to prevent the victim from exercising his political rights." 182. On their behalf, the representatives indicated that the proceedings were "not appropriate judicial remedies, given that in the respective decisions, the Supreme Tribunal of Justice not only failed to observe constitutional regulations, but also misapplied the provisions of Article 23(2) of the American Convention," showing "a clear denial of justice." In addition, according to the representatives, "none of the judicial remedies" were able to "protect against acts that violate his political rights, as they excessively delayed a decision thereon; they ignored the 'control of conformity with the Convention’” and “rejected that control with the argument of the rule of law based on sovereignty.” 183. The State did not present specific arguments about the effectiveness of judicial remedies. However, it argued that "the principle of a reasonable period of time could not be considered breached, to which it could not be said that the Venezuelan State violated the right to an expedited appeal under Article 25 of the American Convention.” 4.2. Considerations of the Court 258 Cf. ECHR. Judgment of 8 de julio de 1987, H v. the United Kingdom, paras. 71-86; Judgment of 31 de marzo de 1992, X v. France, para. 32; Judgment of 23 de marzo de 1994, Silva Pontes, para. 39. 69