law regarding the claims that have been at a standstill for more than (1) year, prior to the presentation of the reports.” 253 167. In this way, still assuming that on average the periods prescribed in the Organic Law allow for the conclusion that an appeal filed before the Supreme Tribunal of Justice must be resolved in 10 and a half months, the Court considers that the period of 3 years and 6 months and of 3 years are reasonable given the complexity of the matter at hand (supra para. 163). Moreover, the Court finds that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice diligently handled the actions put forward by the parties. iv. Effect generated by the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding 168. The Court recalls that if the passage of time affects, in a relevant manner, the legal situation of an individual, it is necessary that the proceeding run with more diligence in order for the case to be resolved in as brief a manner as possible. 254 The Court notes that while, in this case, Mr. López Mendoza had a special interest in the swiftness of the decision regarding the appeal for annulment in order to establish his candidacy in the election of November 2008, in the circumstances of this case, it is not clear that the lack of a quick decision is what affected the rights of the victim. 169. For the foregoing, the Court considered that the State has been able to justify that the time that the Supreme Tribunal of Justice delayed in resolving the appeals for annulment filed by the alleged victim is in conformity with the principle of reasonable time. 3.2. Regarding the constitutional challenge 3.2.1. Arguments of the parties 170. While the Commission “considered it reasonable that the Constitutional Chamber of the STJ had delayed 2 years in resolving the appeal […] given the complexity of the matter and the accumulation of claims in the same proceeding,” it highlighted “that the petitioner attempted, opportunely, various remedies in attempts to challenge or request the suspension of the effects of the law that prevented him from exercising his political rights to run in a popular election; this is all in consideration of his intention to [be] a candidate in the November 2008 elections and considering that the process for registering for said election was August 5 to 14, 2008.” Thus, for the Commission, “the time that passed for jointly resolving the appeals is not reasonable. This situation is even more relevant if one considers the nature of the rights and interests at play.” In this way, “the possibility of registering, in August 2008, the candidacy of [Mr.] López Mendoza for the November 2008 elections was related to the timely and effective decision of the judicial bodies of his country and the compatibility of Article 105 of the LOCGRSNCF with the Constitution and with the American Convention.” 253 The Organic Law of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, published in the Official Gazette N° 37.942 on May 20, 2004. Cited int he final written arguments of the representatives (Case file on the merits, tome III, folio 1209) and available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/nuevaleytsj.htm (last visited on September 1, 2011). 254 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al., supra note 247, para. 155; Case of Garibaldi V. Brasil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 138, and Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra note 22, para. 136. 66