administrative action by the passiveness, inactivity, insufficient diligence, and lack of response of the State authorities. 135. Regarding the third element, the procedural activity of the interested party, the Court observes that, far from hindering the processing of the remedy, many of the activities during the proceedings were initiated at the Community’s request. 136. As for the fourth element, in order to determine whether the time frame was reasonable, the effect of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the interested party must be taken into account, considering, among other matters, the matter that is the purpose of the dispute. The Court has established that, if the passage of time has relevant effects on the legal situation of the individual, the proceedings must be advanced with greater diligence so that the case is decided promptly.158 In this case, the delay in obtaining a final solution to the problem of the land of the members of the Community has had a direct effect on their living conditions. This situation will be examined in detail in Chapter VII infra. 137. In addition, the Court recalls that, in the cases of the Yakye Axa and Sawhoyamaxa indigenous communities, both against Paraguay, this Court found that the period of more than 11 and 13 years, respectively, which the actions on their land claims lasted, were not compatible with the principle of reasonable time.159 Therefore, the period of more than 17 years that has elapsed in the instant case (supra para. 127) can only lead to a similar conclusion. 138. Consequently, the Court finds that the duration of the administrative proceedings is not compatible with the principle of reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 2.2.3. Effectiveness of the administrative remedy to indigenous land claim 139. Article 25(1) of the Convention establishes the obligation of the States Parties to guarantee to all persons under their jurisdiction an effective legal remedy against acts that violate their fundamental rights.160 The existence of this guarantee “is one of the basic pillars not only of the American Convention, but of the rule of law itself in a democratic society.”161 In the absence of such effective remedies the individual would be placed in a situation of defenselessness.162 140. For the State to comply with the provisions of Article 25 of the Convention, it is not enough for the remedies to exist formally, but rather it is essential that they be 158 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia, supra note 156, para. 155; Case of Kawas Fernández, supra note 14, para. 115, and Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, supra note 155, para. 138. 159 Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 5, para. 89; Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, supra note 20, para. 97 and 98. 160 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Preliminary objections. Judgment of June 26, 1987. Series C No.1, para. 91; Case of the “Dos Erres” Massacre v. Guatemala, supra note 12, para. 104, and Case of Chitay Nech et al. v. Guatemala, supra note 8, para. 190. 161 Cf. Case of Castillo Páez v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82; Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 195, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 20, 2009. Series C No. 207, para. 128. 162 Cf. Case of Palamara Iribarne v. Chile. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 162, para. 183, and Case of Usón Ramírez v. Venezuela, supra note 161, para. 128. 33