3 analysis regarding the reasonable time period: the “the impairment to the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings,” an element which was previously included in the judgment rendered in the Case of Valle-Jaramillo et al. v Colombia (para. 155). 14. In its analysis, the Court has often addressed the “reasonable time” to comply with an obligation or ensure the protection of a right. For such purpose, it has resorted to certain elements taken from the case law of the European Court, namely: the complexity of the matter, the procedural activity of the interested party, and the conduct of the judicial authorities. The reasonable nature of the time elapsed, i.e. the reasonableness of the time period in question, has been evaluated in the light of such factors or references. 15. In the judgments rendered in the cases of Valle-Jaramillo and Kawas-Fernández we can find – alongside the aforementioned data – the assessment of the weight or influence of the lapse of time on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceedings (or in a procedure, generally speaking) the duration of which gives rise to the discussion we are now dealing with. It is evident that the key lies not in adding “conditions” or “requirements” to the assessment of the time period but in calling the tribunal’s attention to other data that may contribute to a better analysis of the matter. 16. In the judgment rendered in the Case of Valle-Jaramillo, the Court reiterated “that three elements must be taken into account in order to determine whether the time is reasonable: a) the complexity of the matter, b) the procedural activity of the interested party, and c) the conduct of the judicial authorities;” and then added: “In addition, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that, in this analysis of reasonableness, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account; bearing in mind, among other elements, the matter in dispute. If the passage of time has a relevant impact on the judicial situation of the individual, the proceedings should be carried out more promptly so that the case is decided as soon as possible” (para. 155) (emphasis added). 17. Clearly, however, in certain cases no in-depth analysis of the fourth element will be necessary, just like in other cases it was and is not necessary to analyze each of the three remaining elements. The matters submitted to the Court’s decision are presented and adjudicated based on their own characteristics. It is those characteristics which will point the court in the direction of a more exhaustive or less detailed examination of each of the points of reference contributed by the European case law, as well as of the one recently added by the Inter-American decisions. 18. It is, in my view, plausible that the Court has made progress in the examination of this subject, as per its own experience and reasoning, thereby expanding the framework contributed by the European case law. The new inclusion does not impair or darken; on the contrary, it improves and favors the analysis of judiciable cases and the adoption of relevant definitions. The Inter-American Court has come a long way in the enrichment of international case law, sometimes overcoming obstacles and dispelling reluctances, and it will certainly walk a long way in the future as well. 19. I cannot fail to mention the fact that, in certain separate opinions, I have for some time now dealt with this “fourth element” of assessment, and I will also approvingly make reference to certain legal authors who have addressed the same subject. So is expressly noted, for instance, by judge Cecilia Medina-Quiroga when analyzing the reasonable time period (cf. La Convención Americana: teoría y jurispudencia. Vida, integridad personal, libertad personal, debido proceso y recurso judicial (Universidad de Chile, Facultad de Derecho, Centro de Derechos Humanos, San José, C.R., 2003, p. 311).