99. In other words, analysis of reasonable time does not involve a mathematical calculation, but rather consideration of the particular circumstances of each case. It is also necessary to take into account how the proceedings affect the rights and duties of the persons awaiting the decision. This is because, in some cases, the amount of time that has elapsed while damages amounts are being weighed in is not very relevant, but in other cases, it is very detrimental to the victim; which is why “the other elements used to assess reasonableness – complexity of the matter and conduct of authorities and private individuals – should also be examined in light of the prejudice that is being caused to the victim.”166 100. The European Court of Human Rights has also established that the duration of the proceedings is determined on the basis of the circumstances of the case, and in keeping with the following criteria: (a) the complexity of the case; (b) the conduct of the party; (c) the conduct of the authorities; and (d) the importance of what is at stake for the party in the case.167 101. Taking into account the arguments of the parties and the case law cited above, the Commission must determine whether the facts established in the present case with regards to the proceedings prove that Sebastian Furlan and his father, Danilo Furlan,168 had access to a simple and prompt recourse and whether they were heard within a reasonable time, as provided in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in accordance with the general obligation to ensure rights established in Article 1.1 of said treaty. 102. With regard to the element of the complexity of the matter, the Commission notes that the present case does not involve a high degree of complexity, inasmuch as it is a civil suit for damages, wherein the only thing to be determined is (i) whether the damages occurred (or in the words of the court, “presence of the elements of primary fact that gave rise to the claim”), (ii) whether that act can be attributed to the State, and (iii) once responsibility is ascribed, to execute the judgment. 103. Therefore, the purpose of the civil proceedings that were brought was to determine whether a State entity was responsible or not for damages done to one person. The Commission Objections, Merits, Reparation and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 244. Also see the Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez to the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Case of Lopez Alvarez vs. Honduras, February 1, 2006, para. 29; Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez to the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of March 29, 2006, in the Case of Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community vs. Paraguay, para. 8; Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez to the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Case of Lopez Alvarez vs. Honduras, February 1, 2006, para. 29; Reasoned Opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez on the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of June 29, 2006, in the Case of the Massacre of Ituango, para. 26; Concurring Opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the Case of Valle Jaramillo et al of November 27, 2008, paras. 9-14. 166 See concurring opinion of Judge Sergio Garcia Ramirez with the Judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the Case of Valle Jaramillo et al of November 27, 2008, paras. 9 and 12. “Time does not elapse equally for everyone, and the elements usually taken into consideration to establish the reasonableness of time do not affect everyone in the same way.” 167 See ECHR, X vs. France, March 31, 1992, Series A, No. 234-C, pg. 90, para. 32; ECHR, Silva Pontes vs. Portugal, March 23, 1994, Series A no. 286-A, p. 15, para. 39; ECHR, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, para. 43; ECHR 2000-VII. ECHR, Mészáros v. Hungary, no. 21317/05, January 21, 2009, para. 15. 168 Established facts indicate that Danilo Furlan, Sebastian’s father, filed the complaint in the domestic courts and moved the case forward during all of the stages, in light of the fact that Sebastian was a minor and, for that reason, the petitioner came forward as his legal representative in the proceedings. The IACHR further notes that even though it is a proven fact that Sebastian began to take part in the proceedings once he reached adult age, on October 38, 1996, it is on record in the case file that Danilo Furlan continued to take part in the proceedings, even as his legal representative, as is mentioned in the judgment of September 7, 2000.