6 Castillo Petruzzi, et al. versus Peru (Judgment of 05.30.1999, para. 184), Cesti Hurtado versus Peru (Judgment of 09.29.1999, para. 121), "Street Children" (Villagrán et al. versus Guatemala, Judgment of 11.19.1999, para. 234), Durand and Ugarte versus Peru, Judgment of 08.16.2000, para. 101), Cantoral Benavides versus Peru (Judgment of 08.18.2000, para. 163), Bámaca Velásquez versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.25.2000, para. 191), Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community versus Nicaragua (Judgment of 08.31.2001, para. 112), Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. versus Trinidad and Tobago (Judgment of 06.21.2002, para. 150), Cantos versus Argentina (Judgment of 11.28.2002, para. 52), Juan Humberto Sánchez versus Honduras (Judgment of 06.07.2003), Maritza Urrutia versus Guatemala (Judgment of 11.27.2003, para. 117), 19 Merchants versus Colombia (Judgment of 07.05.2004 para. 193), Tibi versus Ecuador (Judgment of 09.08.2004, para. 131), Serrano Cruz Sisters versus El Salvador (Judgment of 03.01.2005, para. 75), Yatama versus Paraguay (Judgment of 06.23.2005, para. 169), Acosta Calderón versus Ecuador (Judgment of 06.24.2005, para. 93), and Palamara Iribarne versus Chile (Judgment of 11.22.2005, para. 184). 15. In the Judgment adopted by the Inter-American Court in the present case of López Álvarez versus Honduras, the Tribunal has once again been faithful to its best case-law, by trying the alleged – and proven – violations of Articles 25 and 8(1) jointly, in relation with Article 1(1) of the American Convention (paras. 126-156). Effectively, the access to justice and the guarantees of the due process of law are inevitably interlinked. This is what can be clearly concluded, inter alia, from the consideration of the Court that, in the present case of López Álvarez, "The right to access justice implies that the solution of the controversy must be issued in a reasonable time; a prolonged delay could constitute, in itself, a violation of the judicial guarantees." (para. 128) IV. The Inseparability between the Access to Justice (Right to an Effective Recourse) and the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law (Articles 25 and 8 of the American Convention). 16. On the day on which the Court adopted the Substantive Judgment (of 11.03.1997) in the case of Castillo Páez, - the starting point of this lucid constant caselaw of the Inter-American Court, - I experimented, with satisfaction, a feeling of realization of a meaningful advance in the jurisprudence of the Court, that went on to place the right to an effective recourse in the important position it deserves, as an expression of the right itself to access justice – in its lato sensu sense, understood as the right to jurisdictional benefits, thus covering, inevitably, the guarantees of the due process of law, as well as the faithful execution of the judgment. How then can we stop relating Article 25 with Article 8 of the Convention? At the end, what would be the effectiveness of the guarantees of the due process (Article 8) if the individual does not have the right to an effective recourse (Article 25)? And what would be the effectiveness of the latter without the guarantees of the due process of law? 17. The truth is that one and the other complement each other, in the legal framework of the rule of law in a democratic society. This is the sane hermeneutics of these two conventional provisions. Also, on the day on which the Court adopted the