4 15. A court ruling on human rights must be especially careful when solving alleged or actual dilemmas, in order to secure, to the greatest extent possible, the conciliation of the rights at issue, so as to guarantee the broadest protection to the holder of such rights. However, there is no denying either that, in certain cases, it is necessary to give priority to one of such rights in order to provide, through such acknowledgement, more complete and satisfactory substantial protection to the affected person. The right to a reasonable term thus gives in to the demands of Justice. 16. The Court has noted that an excessively long term may prove to be as unreasonable –precisely due to its “excessive” nature— as an excessively short one –for the exact same reason. However, it was expressed that, ultimately, guaranteeing a fair judgment through more and better defense action is more important than having the case heard and disposed of in a brief period of time. This prevalence of material justice requires, however, that the term be reevaluated subject to adequate standards of proportionality, relevance and opportunity, all in line with whatever may be necessary to secure justice in each specific case. THE CONTEXT OF OR CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE VIOLATION 17. In the Judgment rendered in the case of La Cantuta –as in the rulings handed down in cases such as Goiburú, Almonacid, and Castro-Castro–, the Court introduced a consideration of “context,” allowing an analysis of the facts that constitute the violations in the specific circumstances of the case. Such circumstances bring about the facts, their characteristics, meaning and support, and contribute to the judicial solution, both as regards the evaluation of the facts and the reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. 18. An ordinary court decision might do without reflections or descriptions regarding the circumstances in which the case arose, as extended to the parties and the general status of society or a given social group, or a given set of relationships at a given place and time. However, a human rights ruling aimed at shedding some light on the violations and preventing new ones from taking place, creating the proper conditions for the better recognition and exercise of fundamental rights, cannot disengage itself from the context and be rendered in a “void.” This “historical” aspect of the case and the desired “far reach” of the relevant ruling explain and justify the “backdrop” unfolded by the Court in examining a case, as a preface to the account of the facts and as reference for applying the law. 19. The special characteristics of human rights justice also explain and justify a practice followed by the Inter-American Court both in carrying out public hearings and in the structuring of its judgments, which at times may appear overabundant or redundant. In the event of acceptance and acquiescence by the State –acceptance of the facts and acquiescence to the claims— it might be possible to do without the presentation of evidence of the facts, which have already been accepted, and accounts of such facts in a judgment in which the court is no longer required to verify the facts that constitute the violations, but merely to define their consequences (if the parties have not reached a settlement regarding such consequences or if such consequences cannot be the subject-matter of a settlement agreement by the parties). 20. However, court decisions on human rights seek to “set an example” and “be instructive.” They contribute to the “uncovering of the truth” and “political and social rectification.” Put differently, they are not limited to or satisfied by a brief decision on the specific dispute –which, by the way, has already come to an end–, but seek to instruct on the factors that breach fundamental rights, breaching practices, the suffering of victims, the