and daughter.” Subsequently, a hearing was held in May 2011 in the context of the proceedings on the visiting regime, during which specific agreements were reached. It added that the rapprochement process agreed on “was virtually suspended, because during the first court hearing that was convened following [it], no agreement was reached and [Mr.] Fornerón’s legal representative failed to attend a second hearing convened for September 27, [2011].” iii) Considerations of the Court on a reasonable time 65. Based on the arguments of the Inter-American Commission and the representatives, the Court will analyze whether the proceedings on legal guardianship and the visiting regime complied with the requirement of reasonable time in keeping with Article 8(1) of the Convention. The violation of a reasonable time was not argued before this Court with regard to the other proceedings. 66. The right of access to justice must ensure that the rights of the individual are determined within a reasonable time. In principle, the absence of reasonableness in the time frame constitutes, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees. 66 In this regard, the Court has considered the following elements to determine the reasonableness of the time:67 (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activities of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (d) the effects on the legal situation of the individual involved in the proceedings. 67. Regarding the first element, the proceedings analyzed involve the guardianship of a child who is being claimed by her biological father, and the establishment of a visiting regime that permits the creation of ties between them. These issues, even though they are of enormous relevance and require special care, are being heard in specific proceedings that are not particularly complex and that are not unusual for States. 68. With regard to the procedural activity of the interested party in both proceedings, the Court underscores that, among other measures, Mr. Fornerón: (a) informed the authorities from the outset of his opposition to the request for legal guardianship filed by the couple B-Z and, from the moment he became aware that he could be the child’s father, asked to assume responsibility for her; (b) submitted to several tests, including DNA testing; (c) filed different briefs and petitions, including appeals against several decisions; (d) filed an action for visiting rights; (e) presented proposals for a visiting regime; (f) requested measures to expedite the proceedings, and (g) submitted various petitions to the judge in charge of the visiting regime proceedings including, on several occasions, a request that he finally issue a decision (supra paras. 23, 31, 32, 34, 38 and 39 to 42). In conclusion, there is nothing to indicate that, in this case, Mr. Fornerón has obstructed the domestic proceedings; but rather, to the contrary, he has played an active role, doing everything possible to make progress towards finalizing them. 69. Even though Mr. Fornerón took all the measures that could reasonably be required during the proceedings, the Court notes that, in a case such as this one, the responsibility for accelerating the proceedings falls on the judicial authorities, because of their obligation 66 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 257. 67 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 77, and Case of González Medina and family v. Dominican Republic, supra note 10, para. 255. 22