needed. The Court reiterates, moreover, that the reasonableness of the time taken needs to be assessed with regard to the entire duration of proceedings, from the first procedural act through to the handing down of a final judgment, including any appeals that may be filed."169 136. In particular, the I/A Court of H/R has considered "that observance of legal provisions and diligence in judicial proceedings are fundamental for protecting the best interests of the child. On the other hand, the best interests of the child may not be invoked to justify failure to comply with legal requirements, delays, or errors in judicial procedures."170 137. The European Court of Human Rights had occasion to pronounce on reasonable time issues relating to custody and abduction procedures. Thus, it mentioned that such procedures need to be handled as a matter of urgency since the passage of time can have irreparable consequences for relations between the child and the parent he or she was separated from.171 In particular, the Court has held that Article 8 of the European Convention is violated when a State's procedural arrangements do not facilitate expeditious decision-making with respect to return procedures.172 It has also considered that Article 8 of the European Convention is violated when a State's legal framework did not properly adapt in such a way as to afford the protection needed to provide the guarantees protected by that Convention, thereby preventing execution of a custody ruling.173 It has also maintained that, in an international abduction procedure under the Hague Convention,, a procedure lasting 11 months violates Article 8 of the European Convention.174 138. The Court has considered that the right of all persons to simple and prompt recourse or any other effective remedy before a competent judge or tribunal for protection against acts that violate their fundamental rights “constitutes one of the basic pillars, not only of the American Convention, but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, within the meaning of the Convention.”175 Judicial remedies needs to be effective, in the sense of being capable of leading to an analysis by a competent court in order to ascertain whether or not a human rights violation took place and, if so, to provide reparation.176 In extremely serious cases in which the violation of fundamental rights is evident, the court´s invocation of merely procedural arguments to refuse to consider such violations constitutes a denial of justice and of due process.177 139. Additionally, the Court has held that the right to identity “is a fundamental right” that “can be conceptualized, in general, as the series of attributes and characteristics that allow the individualization of a person in society and, in this regard, it comprises several other rights included in the Convention, according to the subject of rights in question and the circumstances of this case.” “Thus, with regard to boys, girls, and adolescents, based on the provisions of Article 8 of the Convention, the right to identity comprises, among other matters, the right to family relationships.”178 It has also indicated that, in view of the importance of the interests at stake, the right to physical integrity, the right to identity, and the right to protection of the family, in “the administrative and judicial proceedings relating to the protection of the human rights of the child, particularly those judicial proceedings concerning the adoption, guardianship and custody of boys and girls in early childhood, must be handled by the authorities with exceptional diligence and celerity. The foregoing reveals a need to defend and to protect the best interest of the child, as well as to guarantee the rights that are potentially I/A Court H.R. Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, par. [83] Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 20, 1999. Series C No. 44, par. 71, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, par. 106. 170 I/A Court H.R. Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, par. 105. 171 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Marie v. Portugal (Application no. 48206/99). Judgment of June 26, 2003. 172 European Court of Human Rights. Case of M. A v. Austria. (Application no. 4097/13). Judgment of July 21, 2015. 173 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Bajrami v. Albania (Application no. 35853/04). Judgment of June 12, 2006. 174 European Court of Human Rights. Case of Karrer v. Romania, (Application no. 35853/04). Judgment of Monday, June 12, 2006. February 21, 2012. 175 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador. Merits and Reparations. Judgment of June 27, 2012. Series C No. 245, par. 262. 176 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ruano Torres et al. v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of October 05, 2015. Series C No. 303, par. 136. 177 IACHR. Report No. 24/17. Case 12,254 Merits. Víctor Hugo Saldaño. United States. March 18, 2017, par. 215. 178 Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 1, 2011. Provisional Measures with Regard to Paraguay, Matter of L.M., par. 15. 169