established in Article 25.1 must operate under the due process standards provided in Article 8.1 of the Convention, all within the general obligation of the States set forth in Article 1.1 of said treaty to ensure to all persons within their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights as recognized by said treaty.156 Article 1.1 of the American Convention provides that: The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 93. The right of every person to a simple and prompt recourse or any other effective recourse for protection against acts that violate his or her human rights is one of the basic pilars of the American Convention and the Rule of Law in a democratic society and is closely tied to the general obligation established in Article 1.1 of the American Convention, conferring protective functions on the domestic laws of the States.157 94. Citing the Inter-American Court, the Commission has established that in order for an effective recourse to exist, it is not enough that it be provided for by the Constitution or the law, but rather it must be truly suitable for establishing whether a violation of human rights has occurred and for providing the necessary means for its remedy; thus, recourses that are illusory, as a result of a denial of justice, such as when there is unwarranted delay in the decision, cannot be considered effective.158 The Commission has also established that an essential element of effectiveness is timeliness; moreover, the right to judicial protection requires the courts to adjudicate and decide cases expeditiously,159 particularly with respect to urgent cases.160 95. In the case under consideration, there is a dispute between the parties as to responsibility for the delay in the proceedings; that is, as to whether the delay was unwarranted or not, and whether the delay can be ascribed to the State. Therefore, the first thing that must be determined is what period of time should be examined by the IACHR in order to assess reasonableness or unreasonableness, as the case may be, upon which the Commission shall rule on State responsibility. On this topic, the Commission and the Court have stated that “the reasonable 156 IA Court HR, Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 127. 157 See for example, IA Court HR, Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, paras. 82-83; I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; IA Court H/R Case of Blake vs. Guatemala. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 102; I/A Court H.R., Case of the “White Van” (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala. Judgment of March 8, 1998. Series C No. 37, para. 164; I/A Court H.R., Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al v. Peru. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 184; I/A Court H.R., Case of Durand and Ugarte v. Peru. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68 para. 101; I/A Court H.R., Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 112; I/A Court H.R., Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al v. Trinidad y Tobago. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 150; among others. 158 IACHR, Report No. 100/01, Case 11.381, Milton García Fajardo et al, Nicaragua, October 11, 2001, para. 81 citing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-9/87, of October 6, 1987, series A, No 9, para. 24. Also see I/A Court H.R., Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, par 137. 159 See Case 11.218, Report No. 52/97, Arges Sequeira Mangas (Nicaragua), Annual Report of the IACHR 1997, para. 106 (wherein it is established that one of the components of judicial protection is the right to a simple and prompt recourse). Also see the I/A Court H.R., Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 134 (wherein it is noted that remedies are illusory and ineffective if unwarranted delay exists in reaching a decision on them). 160 IACHR, Report Nº 40/04, Case 12.053, Merits, Mayan Indigenous Communities of the District of Toledo, Belize, October 12, 2004, para. 176.