16 and has been in force since January 11, 2017.83 It is particularly relevant that Article 31 (Access to Justice) of this international instrument states that “State Parties shall ensure due diligence and preferential treatment for older persons in the processing, settlement of, and enforcement of decisions in administrative and legal proceedings.” 48. Although the European system of human rights does not have a specific legal instrument that protects older persons in a differentiated manner, Article 23 of the revised version of the European Social Charter (1996), establishes “[t]he right of elderly persons to social protection.”84 49. Despite the foregoing, the most significant progress made with regard to protecting the rights of the older person has been in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights based on the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, and in the case law of the Inter-American Court applying the provisions of the American Convention. 50. In the case of the European Court of Human Rights, that Court has had the occasion to rule in cases involving older persons on issues relating to the disappearance from a nursing home for the elderly of a resident suffering from Alzheimer’s disease; 85 on the need for prompt proceedings due to the age of the applicants;86 on the closure of care homes for older persons;87 and on the protection of the property of older persons. 88 c) The Inter-American Court’s case law on older persons 51. We can identify two stages in the Inter-American Court’s case law in relation to older persons: (a) the first in which, timidly and tangentially, it addressed the specific situation of an older person, and (b) the second, in which the Court addressed the case from a perspective of “age” as a factor that had a differentiated impact on older persons and their rights. 52. Regarding the first stage, in 2005, in the Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, the Inter-American Court noted that some members of the community were “elderly” and considered that “[a]s regards the special consideration required by the elderly, it is important for the State to take measures to ensure their continuing functionality and autonomy, guaranteeing their right to adequate food, and their access to clean water and To date, this Convention has been signed, ratified or acceded to by the following countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador and Uruguay. 83 “With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right of elderly persons to social protection, the Parties undertake to adopt or encourage, either directly or in co-operation with public or private organizations, appropriate measures designed in particular: - to enable elderly persons to remain full members of society for as long as possible, by means of: (a) adequate resources enabling them to lead a decent life and play an active part in public, social and cultural life; (b) provision of information about services and facilities available for elderly persons and their opportunities to make use of them; – to enable elderly persons to choose their life-style freely and to lead independent lives in their familiar surroundings for as long as they wish and are able, by means of: (a) the provision of housing suited to their needs and their state of health or of adequate support for adapting their housing; (b) the health care and services necessitated by their state; – to guarantee elderly persons living in institutions appropriate support, while respecting their privacy, and participation in decisions concerning living conditions in the institution.” 84 85 Case of Dodov v. Bulgaria. Judgment of January 17, 2008. Cf. Case of Jablonská v. Poland (No.60225/00), Judgment of March 9, 2004. Final, June 9, 2004; Case of Codarcea v. Romania (No. 31675/04), Judgment of June 2, 2009. Final, September 2, 2009; Case of Styranowski v. Poland (No. 28616/95), Judgment of October 30, 1998; and Case of Krzak v. Poland (No. 51515/99), Judgment of April 6, 2004. Final, July 7, 2004. 86 87 Case of Watts v. The United Kingdom, May 4, 2010. Case of Klaus and Iouri Kiladze v. Georgia of February 2, 2010, and Cases of Da Conceição Mateus v. Portugal and Santos Januário v. Portugal of October 8, 2013. 88