41 MEF; therefore the claim of unwarranted delays “is not true.” Likewise, the State considered that there were no “unjustified delays” given that, when the appeals were filed, these were settled by the Superior Court within reasonable times (in less than 11 and 12 months). Finally, regarding the situation of the presumed victim, it indicated that the precarious financial and health situation alleged by Mr. Muelle Flores had not been proven. Consequently, it asked the Court to declare that the State had not violated Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.2 Considerations of the Court 154. In its constant case law, the Court has considered that a prolonged delay in the proceedings can constitute, of itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.163 This is also applicable to proceedings for the execution of final judgments. The Court has indicated that “execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial.”164 In other words, any unjustified delay in the execution of a judgment may imply the violation of the “right to a court” in a reasonable time.165 The Court considers that, “since compliance should be considered an integral part of the proceedings, this right must be understood in conjunction with the requirement for a “prompt decision” when the duration of a trial or proceeding is examined.”166 155. The Court has established that in assessing reasonable time it is necessary to analyze, in each specific case, the entire duration of the process, which may also include the execution of the final judgment. Accordingly, the Court has considered four elements to determine whether this process complied with the guarantee of reasonable time, namely: i) the complexity of the matter, ii) the procedural activity of the interested party, iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and iv) the legal effects on the situation of the individual involved in the proceeding. The Court recalls that it is for the State to justify, based on the criteria indicated, the reasons why it has taken so long to conduct a proceeding. Otherwise, the Court has broad powers to make its own analysis of this matter.167 156. The analysis contained in this section will focus on an assessment of the time elapsed since the adoption of the first amparo judgment of the Supreme Court on February 2, 1993, until the present, and since the adoption of the second amparo judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999, until the present date. 157. With regard to reasonable time in relation to the execution of judgment stage, the Court emphasizes that this period should be shorter owing to the existence of a final decision in relation to the specific matter. It is inadmissible that a proceeding on execution of judgment should temporarily alter a decision issued in a final judgment or in any way undermine it or render it ineffective, excessively or indefinitely prolonging a dispute that has already been settled. This acquires greater relevance in a proceeding on execution of judgment, in which the right to social security has been recognized in the domestic sphere and the victim is an older person with a hearing disability, owing to the nutritional nature of the benefit claimed. In such cases, the judicial guarantee of reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention must be analyzed in conjunction with the Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Acosta et al. v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 177. 164 Cf. ECHR, Case of Hornsby v. Greece, Judgment of March 19, 1997, para. 40; Case of Popov v. Moldova, Judgment of January 18, 2005, no. 74153/01, para. 40; Case of Assanidze v. Georgia. Judgment of April 8, 2004, no. 71503/01, para. 182; Case of Jasiúniene v. Lithuania, Judgment of March 6, 2003, no. 41510/98, para. 27, and Case of Burdov v. Russia, Judgment of May 7, 2002, no. 59498/00, para. 34. 163 Cf. ECHR, Case of Hornsby v. Greece. Judgment of March 19, 1997, para. 40. Cf. Report of the United Nations Secretary General on the effective exercise, in all countries, of economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Ban Ki-moon, a Doc. A/HRC/25/31, December 19, 2013, para. 35. 165 166 167 Cf. Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 306.