93. With reference to the fourth element, the Court has stated that, in determining a reasonable time, it must bear in mind the harm caused to the individual involved by the length of the judicial proceedings, while considering, among others, the issue of the controversy. Thus, the Court has established that, if the passage of time has an important impact on the legal situation of the individual, the proceedings must be carried out as promptly as possible so that the case is resolved within a brief time. 101 The Court reiterates that this case concerns the non-compliance of a decision that resulted in the failure to pay during approximately 25 years, thus affecting a group of persons who, for the most part, are especially vulnerable since they are elderly. 102 94. The Court, therefore, concludes that, with respect to all the members of the group of 4,090 workers listed in Annex I of this judgment (all of the annexes are available on the Court’s Web site), the State is responsible for failing to comply with the guarantee of a reasonable time in the execution of the decision of February 12, 1992, in violation of Articles 8(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. b.2.2 Regarding the sub-group of 2,309 workers 95. The Court observes that the principal controversy regarding the execution of the decision of February 12 with respect to the sub-group of 2,309 workers who continued their judicial claim consists in determining whether this claim derives from and corresponds to what was ordered by the Supreme Court on February 12 and, therefore, whether the State has complied by fully executing that decision. To verify the full execution, which has been claimed by the State, it is essential to rule on whether the scope of that decision includes the additional amounts claimed by the sub-group of workers. 96. The Court notes that, on June 19, 2013, the Sixth Court forwarded the file to the Office of Judicial Expert Examinations so that an expert might establish the amounts due to each workers for the correct application of the additional pay increase, all of this -and against the position of the Statein execution of the decision of February 12. On July 1, 2016, the Expert Report was approved, 103 a decision confirmed on March 16, 2017 by the Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court. 104 On May 23, 2017, the Sixth Court ordered its compliance. 105 The State questioned the resolution that approved the expert opinion, indicating that it lacked res judicata since it had been questioned domestically, even to the point that it was subject to a precautionary measure that had been ordered by another judicial body that suspended its effect. Nonetheless, the Court notes that that measure was lifted on April 7, 2021, when the First Constitutional Court declared without merit the request of the Legal Counsel of the MEF. 106 97. By Resolution 13 of May 18, 2021, 107 that court lifted the precautionary measure. 108 The State had no reason to affirm that the Expert Report continued in controversy, since, according to the domestic judicial decisions, the remedies filed by the State with the purpose of challenging it had been denied. Moreover, the national courts had already ordered compliance of the payments set out 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 Digna Ochoa and family members v. Mexico, supra, para. 135. 102 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 143 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 182. 103 Cf. Expert Report 240-2015-PJ-EV of December 2, 2015 (evidence file, f. 4219 and ff.). 104 Cf. Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Callao, Resolution 538 of March 16, 2017 (evidence file, f. 4298 and ff.). 105 Cf. Sixth Civil Court, Resolution 540 of May 23, 2017 (evidence file, f. 4325). 106 Cf. First Constitutional Court, Resolution 34 of April 7, 2021 (evidence file, f. 62357 and ff.). 107 Cf. First Constitutional Court, Resolution 34 of April 7, 2021 (evidence file, f. 63257 and ff.). 108 Cf. First Constitutional Court, Resolution 13 of May 18, 2021 (evidence file, f. 63297). 101 25