6 also openly violates the right of access to justice. Satisfying this right requires a special effort by the courts, which should achieve the highest productivity compatible with the accuracy of their rulings. It is not a question of winning a race against time, but of using time to make effective progress on the road to justice. 25. We often deal with reasonable time (an essential and well-established concept, but not a mathematical and constant formula), when we examine the conditions in which a defendant is held. In these cases, we assess the reasonableness of the time that has elapsed between the beginning and the end of the proceedings that have given rise to restrictions of rights or that will result in their enjoyment and exercise. In these circumstances, to guide our interpretation (since, as I have said, there are not and could not be unique quantitative rules, applicable in all circumstances), we consider certain elements taken from judicial experience, to which European case law has referred: the complexity of the case, the procedural activity of the parties, the conduct of the authorities, all of which are subject to a casuistic examination in function of their reasonableness and pertinence. These criteria are naturally influenced by the circumstances of each case. 26. I have suggested that another factor should be added to the assessment of reasonable time: the greater or lesser “real effect of the proceedings on the rights and obligations of the individual – in other words, his juridical situation,” as I stated in my separate opinion in López Alvarez v. Honduras, judgment of February 1, 2006. I consider it necessary to merge this factor with the others we usually consider. Regarding the issue that we are now examining, the reasonableness of time must also be assessed (although not exclusively) from the perspective of the burden – from light to intolerable – that the passage of time imposes of the individual who awaits the solution of the conflict affecting him. 27. After all, the reasonableness of time for providing justice must be examined in relation to the objective sought and the best way to achieve this, taking into considering the different issues raised by all the aspects that the administration of justice must cover in order to achieve the possible and desirable goal: a judgment, following clarification of the facts, the ordering of adequate reparations based on the violations committed, and compliance with the decisions adopted to this end by the competent organs. 28. As I have indicated, in most cases we examine reasonable time from the point of view of the persons subjected to the proceedings (usually, the accused), rather than from the perspective of the other subject in the proceedings: the victim, the aggrieved party. The latter also has rights – above all, the right to justice and, through this, the right to the satisfaction of his legitimate interests, whose definition depends on the greater or lesser diligence of the State bodies called on to determine the facts, through effective investigations, prompt proceedings, and timely decisions. 29. Since we are faced by a problem of “reasonable time,” we must delimit the extremes within which the time is calculated; in other words, the time for the solution of the matter submitted to specific authorities: the moment when it begins and the moment when it ends, even though these definitions may be approximate, and without ever losing sight of the circumstances of each case, which dominate the corresponding solutions. In this regard, the prevailing procedural system is extremely important, and this is not a neutral factor, but an element that conditions and exerts pressure.