5 facts to the application, motu proprio, and deliver a judgment that considers more than the facts submitted to it – which include the corresponding identification of the victims. After all, the Court is not the “owner” of the proceedings and cannot become a party, as well as the judge. 19. In the context of this reflection on the legal framework within which the Court acts, which establishes its powers and limits (a control characteristic of the rule of law to eliminate the possibility of arbitrariness with all its dangers), I wish to recognize the excellent work of synthesis carried out by the Commission when preparing the application. In many cases, particularly those that include abundant, complex facts and numerous participants (either as victims or perpetrators), this synthesis is not a simple task. 20. In the instant case, the Court deployed all possible efforts, without undermining the nature of its functions, to identify the victims and, thus, provide the most extensive satisfaction for the violations committed, taking into account the information obtained from a very thorough examination of the application and the probative elements in the case file. 21. It should be emphasized that, when establishing specific benefits for the victims of violations, the Court expressly protected the rights that, under domestic law and before the national authorities, could correspond to other persons affected by these violations. They have their own recourses and should abide by the terms of these, without expecting the judgment of the international organ to play a role in the corresponding satisfaction. 22. Furthermore, if, according to national law, certain victims identified in this judgment can obtain greater benefits than those established in the international ruling, I consider that they should be able to file a claim, as allowed by domestic law, for any complementary compensation or satisfaction to which they are legitimately entitled. Otherwise, the international legal action would eliminate an individual’s rights or reduce their scope, and this would be totally inconsistent with the preservation of the maximum rights of the individual based on different norms, not only on the American Convention. 3. REASONABLE TIME 23. The matters examined in the Ituango Massacres case include one of the issues that is submitted most frequently to human rights jurisdictions: the reasonable time for implementing certain actions, the duration of a situation (for example, pre-trial detention), or the satisfaction of a right (such as the right to receive justice, and not only to request and await justice), in keeping with due process of law: in other words, to be heard within a reasonable time in order to obtain a decision on responsibilities, rights or situations that concern the rights and obligations of the individual. Justice would remain adrift, pending, unattained or illusory, if the decisions by which it is achieved were not produced promptly. 24. Promptness in processing the matters subject to jurisdictional consideration constitutes a central factor of justice. Evidently, promptness does not mean neglecting the rights and guarantees inherent in the process, oversights in the assessment of the facts and the law, or inconsistency in judicial decisions. But delay in delivering the latter, while those involved in the case wait, losing time and hope,