State argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the infringement of this right was arbitrary. It added that this right was neither invoked nor discussed in the administrative or judicial proceedings. 84. With respect to the guarantee of reasonable time, the State indicated that, in terms of the complexity of the matter, since a complaint was filed before the Consumer Protection Commission of INDECOPI and an administrative disciplinary proceeding had been activated, an extensive evidentiary stage was required in which the defendant company was given a reasonable period of time to present its arguments, as well as any evidence it considered pertinent in order to define responsibilities. Regarding the conduct of the authorities, it argued that in the instant case it was not apparent that they had caused excessive delays in the proceedings; on the contrary, Mr. Olivera’s claims had been heard in five different instances, which had undoubtedly led to a lengthy processing time. It stressed that there had been no periods of inactivity on the part of the jurisdictional bodies, nor any failure to perform their functions that had resulted in an excessive prolongation of the judicial process. Finally, in relation to Mr. Olivera’s legal situation, the State emphasized that his situation was not urgent or in danger of causing irreparable harm, and therefore there was no reason to give particularly prompt attention to this case. B. Considerations of the Court B.1 General considerations on the right to equality and non-discrimination 85. The notion of equality established in Articles 1(1) and 24 of the American Convention stems directly from the unique nature of the human being and is inseparable from the essential dignity of the individual. This principle cannot be reconciled with the notion that a given group has the right to privileged treatment because of its perceived superiority; or conversely, that a certain group can be characterized as inferior and treated with hostility or otherwise subjected to discrimination in the enjoyment of rights that are accorded to others not so classified. 88 The Court has pointed out that there is an indissoluble link between the obligation to respect and guarantee human rights and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. 89 Moreover, in its case law the Court has established that, at the current stage of evolution of international law, the fundamental principle of equality and non-discrimination has entered the domain of ius cogens, because the whole legal structure of national and international public order rests upon it and permeates all laws. 90 86. The Court recalls that Article 24 of the Convention contains a mandate to guarantee material equality. Likewise, it recalls that the right to equality guaranteed by Article 24 of the Convention has two dimensions: the first is a formal dimension that establishes 88 Cf. Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provision of the Constitution of Costa Rica. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84 of January 19, 1984. Series A No. 4, para. 55, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 22, 2022. Series C No. 453, para. 46. 89 Cf. Juridical Condition and Rights of Undocumented Migrants. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03 of September 17, 2003. Series A No. 18, para. 85, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 47. 90 Cf. Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, supra, para. 101, and Case of Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, supra, para. 46. 27