that, with respect to access to justice, “older persons acquire a right to preferential treatment in the enforcement of judgments favorable to them, and that the State has a corresponding obligation to guarantee that older persons enjoy diligent, speedy, effective access to justice in both administrative and judicial proceedings.” 30 Finally, the Court added that the obligation to act expeditiously in the case of older persons is justified to a great extent because they belong to a vulnerable group 31 and, therefore, “we can deduce that, in the case of people who are vulnerable […] a reinforced standard of expeditiousness can be required in judicial and administrative processes.” 32 22. Another significant aspect, although it might appear to be minor, is the manner in which the facts of the case incorporated -disconnectedly- the span of the ages of the declared victims. 33 For example, although it was not the first time that the Court resolved similar questions of fact, 34 it was the first time that it clearly delineated the range of the “age” of the older persons who were declared victims. C. The “reinforced standard of expeditiousness” for older persons 23. Finally, this case fits into an expedited line of case law began in 2018, which contrasts with more than three decades in which the Court timidly, and almost absently, addressed the rights of older persons as a vulnerable group. 35 24. This judgment, in addition to the reflections in the preceding paragraphs that stress the right to a “preferential treatment” for older persons, 36 incorporates in its considerations “the reinforced standard of expeditiousness” as a general principle of international law for those persons. 25. It should not be forgotten that the Court had already ruled on this “differential perspective.” In Furlan and family v. Argentina, in the context of the analysis of a reasonable time in “the civil suit for damages [that] involved a minor, and later on an adult, with a disability” and who “had few financial resources to obtain adequate rehabilitation” implied that the judicial authorities should observe “an even greater obligation to respect and guarantee his rights.” 37 In that case, the Court held that: (i) the authorities did not take into account the vulnerability of the victim; (ii) the case called for a ”greater diligence” and (iii) the “main objective of the suit […] depended on the promptness of the proceeding.” 38 Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 149. 31 Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, paras. 150 and 151. 32 Cf. Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 10, 2021. Series C No. 443, para. 152. 33 The judgment states that: “125. The alleged victims are all older adults. Since June 30, 2021, the date of the transmission of the parties’ closing arguments, 149 alleged victims, or eighteen percent of the total, were between 80 and 92 years of age; 325 alleged victims, or thirty-eight percent of the total, between 70 and 79 years of age, and 189 alleged victims, or twenty-two percent of the total, between 61 and 69 ears of age. As of the same date, 185 alleged victims, or over one-fifth of the total, had passed away.” 34 For example: Case of the National Association of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394. 35 See supra, para. 17, footnote 23 of this opinion. 36 See, Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of February 1, 2022, para 79. 37 Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 201. 38 Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 202. 30 6