which will show that the process affects a person in a situation of vulnerability. 83. Therefore, it may be concluded that in the case of persons who are in a situation of vulnerability, such as the alleged victims in the instant case, who are all older persons, a reinforced standard of expeditiousness can be required in all judicial and administrative proceedings, including the execution of judgments. 92 b.2 Alleged non-compliance with the decision of February 12, 1992 84. The Court notes that there is no controversy as to whether the alleged victims worked on a rotational basis under CCTM control and rules until March 11, 1991, the date on which the CCTM was dissolved. This led to the creation of the Commission of Dissolution of the CCTM, which was charged with paying the workers’ entitlements and social benefits. 85. To arrive at a correct calculation of the amounts owed, FEMAPOR –the national body to which the alleged victims were affiliated- filed a writ of amparo that culminated in the decision of February 12, which determined the correct manner to calculate the payments. The parties and the Commission have recognized that the State began to make gradual payments to the workers in 2004, having paid out, as of December 2017, a total of USD 44,060,949.65. 86. In addition, the Multisectoral Commission, responsible for compiling information on the payments to the workers, published in 2003 a Final Report in which it warned that there were workers “with an incorrect payment or a lack of payment,” indicating that they should make a new claim “before the corresponding judicial body.” 93 Therefore, on March 5, 2010 and as part of the enforcement of the decision of February 12, a sub-group of workers, beneficiaries of the decision made an additional claim for the correct liquidation of their “entitlements and benefits, educational allowance and interest.” 94 The State did not make any payment in this respect to these workers and claimed that the controversy continues to be examined domestically. 87. The Commission argued that, with respect to the workers who were not party to the claim of March 5, 2010, the requirement to make a new claim violated the right to judicial protection. The Court notes, however, that, as indicated by the Multisectoral Commission, it was necessary to initiate a judicial proceeding in order to analyze the situation of each worker and to determine whether there were adequate amounts after the payment made by the State of USD 44,060,949.65 in executing the decision of February 12, a matter that was not done and, therefore, prevented an analysis by the Inter-American Court with respect to this specific sub-group. 88. The controversy in this case, and especially in this chapter, turns on two issues: (i) the Court must determine whether the judicial proceeding, initiated by the workers who are the alleged victims, that partially culminated with gradual State payments from 2004 to 2017 infringed a reasonable time in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, and (ii) the Court is asked to analyze whether the additional claim for the correct liquidation of its “entitlements and benefits, and educational allowance and interest” presented by the sub-group of 2,309 95 workers also infringed Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention. Finally, the Court will also analyze whether all these shortcomings violated Article 2 of the Convention. Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 152. Cf. Final Report of the Commission created by Supreme Decree 078-2003-EF (evidence file, fs 4110 to 4143). 94 Cf. Final Report of the Commission created by Supreme Decree 078-2003-EF (evidence file, fs. 4110 to 4143). 95 The Court recalls that, while both the parties and the Commission refer to a sub-group of 2,317 workers, in accordance with the file of the case, this number should be 2,317. 92 93 23