19 because what is at stake is crucially important (their health).100 The European Court has also considered that the advanced age of the applicants calls for the authorities to exercise special diligence in the settlement of their proceedings.101 61. Meanwhile, the Inter-American Court has considered that in cases of individuals in a vulnerable situation, such as a person with a disability, it is essential to take the pertinent measures; for example, the relevant authorities must give priority to hearing and deciding cases to avoid processing delays and to ensure prompt rulings and their execution. 102 The Court has also considered that this obligation should be applied in criminal proceedings involving minors living with HIV/AIDS 103 to set in motion the procedure for payment of damages.104 62. That said, the Muelle Flores case reveals that the age of an older person is an important element to consider in this type of case because social security is a right that is associated with income substitution and nutrition and has a major impact on the way in which older persons will live the rest of their lives, especially if we consider that they have a legitimate expectation of receiving a pension when their working life ends. 63. This has particular relevance if we consider that Article 31 (Access to Justice) of the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons establishes that “State Parties shall ensure due diligence and preferential treatment for older persons in the processing, settlement of, and enforcement of decisions in administrative and legal proceedings.” 64. In this specific case, the Inter-American Court noted that the failure to execute the judgments had an impact not only on the enjoyment of the right to social security but also triggered a series of consequences of both a physical and an emotional nature. Specifically, it should be emphasized that, since he was unable to enjoy the right to social security, Mr. Muelle Flores developed a hearing disability. Although it is true that upon reaching an advanced age a person’s bodily functions may diminish, if a lack of access to a system of preventive health care services is added to this, it is logical that upon reaching a certain age ECHR, Case of H. v. The United Kingdom, (No. 9580/81), Judgment of July 8, 1987, para. 85; Case of X. v. France, (No. 18020/91), Judgment of March 31, 1992, para. 47. Similarly, Case of A. and Others v. Denmark, (No. 20826/92), Judgment of February 8, 1996), para. 78. 100 ECHR, Case of Jablonská v. Poland (No.60225/00), Judgment of March 9, 2004. Final, June 9, 2004, para. 43; Case of Codarcea v. Romania (No. 31675/04), Judgment of June 2, 2009. Final, September 2, 2009, para. 89; Case of Styranowski v. Poland (No. 28616/95), Judgment of October 30, 1998, para. 57, and Case of Krzak v. Poland (No. 51515/99), Judgment of April 6, 2004. Final, July 7, 2004, para. 42. 101 Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 196. 102 In the case of Gonzales Lluy, the Court stipulated that: “315. Taking into consideration: (i) that, in this case, Talía’s integrity was at stake; (ii) the consequent urgency derived from her situation as a child with HIV, and (iii) the crucial importance of concluding the proceedings so that Talía and her family could have access to reparation for damages, the Court concludes that there was a special obligation to act with due diligence, and that the State did not comply with this obligation.” Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, para. 315. 103 Cf. Case of Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 298, paras. 309 to 312. Similarly, even though in relation to the measures of reparation in the Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, a case related to a violation of the right to health owing to the lack of medical care for people with HIV/AIDS, the Inter-American Court ordered that it was necessary “to act with special promptness to comply with” the medical and psychological/psychiatric treatment of the direct victims who were alive, “because the preservation of the health, personal integrity and life of the victims in th[e] case depend on compliance with them.” Cf. Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, paras. 210 and 213. 104