violation of that provision in the Convention."158 133. The I/A Court of H.R has pointed out that "Article 8.1 of the Convention upholds every person's, including children's, right to be heard in proceedings determining their rights."159 Thus, it has considered that "This right must be interpreted in light of Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which contains appropriate stipulations on the child’s right to be heard, for the purpose of facilitating the child’s intervention according to his age and maturity and ensuring that it does not harm his genuine interest."160 According to the I/A Court of H.R., there is a direct relationship between the right to be heard and the best interests of the child. There can be no correct application of the best interest of the child without his or her right to be heard being respected. That right encompasses each child's right to express his or her opinion on all matters affecting him or her and the consequent right to have those opinion taken into account, in accordance with the child's age and maturity.161 134. In the same vein, the Court has considered that "The guarantees set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention are equally recognized for all persons, and must be correlated with the specific rights established in Article 19, in such a way that they are reflected in any administrative or judicial proceedings where the rights of a child are discussed,"162 and that "while procedural rights and their corollary guarantees apply to all persons, in the case of children exercise of those rights requires, due to the special conditions of minors, that certain specific measures be adopted for them to effectively enjoy those rights and guarantees."163 135. At the same time, regarding the duration of the process, the case law of the I/A Court of H.R. has consistently held that a prolonged delay in the process may come to constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees.164 Thus, it has established that assessment of whether a given length of time is reasonable needs to be analyzed in each concrete case, in relation to the total duration of the process, which might also include execution of the final judgment. Thus, "it has considered four factors to analyze whether the reasonable time guarantee was met, namely: (i) the complexity of the case,165(ii) the procedural activity of the interested party,166 (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities,167 and (iv) the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim.168 The Court points out that it is up to the State to justify, based on the above criteria, why it took a given length of time to process cases and, if it does not do so, the Court has ample powers to make its own estimates of the time I/A Court H.R. Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of February 4, 2019, par. 64. I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, paragraph 170; I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and Girls. v. Chile, Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of February 24, 2012. Series C No. 239, par. 196. 160 I/A Court H.R. Case of Atala Riffo and Girls. v. Chile, Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of February24, 2012. Series C No. 239, par. 196. 161 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, paragraph 170. 162 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraph 95. 163 I/A Court H.R. Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002. Series A No. 17, paragraph 98. 164 I/A Court H.R. Case of Noguera et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of March 9, 2020. Series C No. 401, par. 83; Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparation, and Costs Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, par. 145. 165 Regarding determination of the complexity of the case, the Court has taken various criteria into account. They include the complexity of the evidence, the number of litigants or of victims, the time elapsed since the fact to be investigated became known, the characteristics of the recourse provided for under domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. Cf. Genie Lacayo Case v. Nicaragua. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, par. 78, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, par. 110. 166 To determine whether or not the time taken is reasonable, the Court has considered whether the procedural conduct of the party interested in seeing justice served contributed to some extent to unwarranted delays in the process. Cf. Cantos Case v. Argentina. Merits, Reparations and Costs, Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, par. 57; and Case of Montesinos Mejía v. Ecuador, par. 184. 167 The Court has taken the view that, for a judgment to be fully effective, judicial authorities must act expeditiously and without delay, given that the principle of effective judicial protection requires that execution procedures be undertaken without hindrance or unwarranted delays, in order to enable it to achieve its objective in a quick, simple, and comprehensive manner. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, par. 106, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina, par. 119. 168 Finally, with regard to the impact on the legal situation of the alleged victim, the Court has asserted that in order to determine whether a period of time is reasonable account must be taken of the impact of the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person involved, bearing in mind, inter alia, the subject matter in dispute; Cf. Case of the National Association of Former Employees and Retirees of the National Superintendency of Tax Administration (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, par. 148. 158 159