proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved must be taken into account, bearing in mind, among other elements, the matter in dispute.426 180. The Court has also had occasion to consider the special importance of speedy judicial proceedings for persons in a vulnerable situation, such as older adults, given the specific impact that a delay may have for such individuals.427 Likewise, the Court has previously taken under advisement the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which found that the advanced age of persons involved in a judicial process imposed a requirement for authorities to be particularly diligent in resolving such processes.428 Expeditious processes therefore are part of the States’ reinforced duties for due diligence in access to justice for older adults (supra paras. 148 to 152). 181. The Court reiterates that the classification per se of the nature of the debt owed to the teachers is an issue that lies outside the body of facts of the instant case (supra para. 3.3). There can be no question, however, that, regardless of whether it was a type of retirement fund, the failure to pay the amounts upheld by the courts of law was injurious to the teachers, as they were not paid an allowance that had been calculated on their base salary, as prescribed under article 40 of 1981 decree-law 3,551. The Court therefore holds that the excessive amount of time in enforcing the judgments necessarily had an impact on the financial status of the alleged victims and their ability to cover their own living expenses. 182. It must also be remembered that the alleged victims are particularly vulnerable because of their age.429 More to the point, alleged victim Ceferina Olivia Matus Rodríguez made a statement in the public hearing about the adverse effects she had experienced when she failed to receive payment of the amounts owed to her: […] first it impaired our ability to educate and support our families. Our salaries declined, and before this, they even used to pay us a two-year bonus (they paid it every other year), and then that was eliminated. So we were earning lower salaries and we thought that with the allowance we were going to receive, things would improve right away, and even thinking about the future, our retirement savings would be better, we would have a better retirement, but nothing came of it. Everything stayed the same. […] That is the petition we are making, seeing that we want and we need to have this debt recognized because at our age we need so many things, especially with health problems. Many of our colleagues have now died, and that is sad enough already, but financially, they did not have the resources to cover treatment, and they were limited to the public health system. We went to doctors’ offices. Right now I am not under a physician’s care, I have hypertension, I cope as best I can because I have no treatment. Everything is on hold with this pandemic. Anyway, in general the care is very poor, we all know that public health care is very bad in Chile, so we have to turn to private medicine, and that 426 Cf. Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, para. 148, and Case of Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, supra, note 305. 427 Cf. Case of García Lucero et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objection, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 267, para. 246. 428 Cf. Case of Furlán and family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, paras. 195 and 196. Citing: ECtHR, Case of Jablonská v. Poland (No.60225/00), Judgment of March 9, 2004. Final, June 9, 2004, para. 43; Case of Codarcea v. Romania (No. 31675/04), Judgment of June 2, 2009. Final, September 2, 2009, para. 89. Also, Case of Styranowski v. Poland (No. 28616/95), Judgment of October 30, 1998, para. 57, and Case of Krzak v. Poland (No. 51515/99), Judgment of April 6, 2004. Final, July 7, 2004, para. 42. 429 Cf. Case of Poblete Vilches et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 8, 2018. Series C No. 349, para. 143; and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. supra, para. 148. 62