19 protected, through Article 21 of the Convention, the vested rights, in other words, those rights that have been incorporated into the patrimony of the people.49 56. Moreover, Article 8(1) of the Convention establishes the guidelines of the socalled “due process of law”, which consists in the right of every person to be heard with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, for the determination of his rights.50 The reasonable time referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be analyzed in relation to the total duration of the proceeding until a final judgment is rendered.51 57. Article 25(1) of the Convention has established, in broad terms, the obligation of every State to provide, to all persons subjected to its jurisdiction, an effective legal recourse against acts that violate the fundamental rights. It also sets forth that the guarantee therein enshrined is applicable not only with regard to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those rights recognized by the Constitution or the laws of the State concerned.52 58. Furthermore, this Tribunal notes that in light of the protection provided for by Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, the States are obliged to provide effective legal recourses to the victims of violations of human rights, in accordance with the judicial guarantees, all this pursuant to the general duty of the States Parties to guarantee the free and full exercise of the rights enshrined in the Convention to every person subjected to its jurisdiction (Article 1(1).)53 59. Lastly, the Court has pointed out that the right to access to justice implies that the controversy be solved within a reasonable time;54 an extended delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of the judicial guarantees.55 Restrictions to the right to property in a democratic society 60. The right to property must be understood within the context of a democratic society where in order for the public welfare and the collective rights to prevail there must be proportional measures that guarantee individual rights. The social role of the 49 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. . Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 102. 50 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 74. 51 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador, Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997; Series C, N° 35, para. 70; and Case of López Álvarez v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 129; and Case of Acosta Calderónl v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C N° 129, para. 104. 52 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987, Series A N.9, par. 23; Case of the Constitutional Tribunal v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. . Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C Nº. 71, para. 89; Case of Yatama V. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 23, 2005. Series C Nº 127, para. 167; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C Nº. 151, para.128. 53 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez, supra note 32, para. 91; Case of the Miguel Castro-Castro Prison v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. . Judgment of November 25, 2006. Series C Nº. 160, para. 381 and Case of Zambrano Vélez. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C Nº. 166, para. 114. 54 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C N°. 94, para. 142 to 145; Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. . Judgment of September 25, 2003. Series C N° 101, para. 209 and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 51, para. 128. 55 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamín et al.; supra note 54; para. 142 to 145; Case of the Moiwana Community, supra note 48, para. 160 and Case of López Álvarez, supra note 51, para. 128.