other special care required by his situation.” They added that the judicial system failed to take into account Sebastián Furlan’s “situation of vulnerability and evident need for protection”, that he was “ [not only] a minor, but also suffered from a disability,” and the conditions of “poverty and marginalization” that his family lived in. They also alleged the violation of the “right to information, health, social security, personal integrity and a dignified life to the detriment of Sebastián Furlan", due to numerous omissions related to the rehabilitation and “in the intervention of mental health and social services.” They pointed out that the “omissions of the State as guarantor” of those rights had a specific impact on Sebastián Furlan’s recovery due to the fact that “he did not receive appropriate and timely medical care that would have allowed him to cope with the health problems caused by the accident in the best possible conditions.” 193. The State did not present specific arguments regarding the adverse effects caused to the party concerned. However, it pointed out that it was denied “any possibility of presenting arguments in its own defense” regarding the alleged violation “of the right to personal integrity […] in relation to the progressive development of economic, social and cultural rights”. The State indicated that “from the time of the accident suffered by Sebastián in December 1988, it had provided medical and psychological assistance on several occasions.” It added that “the public health service was always available to Sebastián Furlan […]. However, his family chose to seek private medical care, in a personal decision that was absolutely to be respected, but not at all attributable to the Argentine State.” Likewise, the State pointed out that free medical treatment was offered to Sebastián Furlan and his family “for purely humanitarian reasons”. According to the State, Danilo Furlan “contacted [the Directorate of Human Rights of the Ministry of Foreign Relations] to express his gratitude.” It argued that “he attended […]only once the interviews programmed with his son Sebastián and on that occasion he expressed his wish to discontinue treatment he had requested, given the resistance of his own family”. Considerations of the Court 194. The Court reiterates that, in the analysis of the reasonableness of the time, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account332, bearing in mind, among other elements, the matter in dispute333. In this regard, this Court has established that 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 possible334. 195. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has, on several occasions, used this criterion in the analysis of a reasonable time. Indeed, in the case of H. v. United Kingdom, the Court placed special emphasis on the importance of "what was at stake" for the applicant and determined that the result of the proceeding in question had a particular quality of irreversibility. Therefore, in cases of this kind, the authorities are under a duty to exercise exceptional diligence335. Moreover, in the case of X. v. France, the Court indicated 332 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al V. Colombia, para. 155. 333 Cf. Case of Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 24, 2010. Series C N° 214; para. 136. 334 Cf. Case of Valle Jaramillo et al V. Colombia, para. 155, and Case of the Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community V. Paraguay. para 136. 335 Cf. ECHR. Case of H. v. United Kingdom, (No. 9580/81), Judgment of 8 July 1987, para. 85. (“In the present case, the Court considers it right to place special emphasis on the importance of what was at stake for the 62