40 conduct of the judicial authorities and c) the procedural activities of the interested party. 200 The Court has also established that in addition to these factors, account must be taken of the interests involved and the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved, in the following terms: In addition, the Court finds it pertinent to clarify that, in this analysis of reasonableness, the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved in it must be taken into account; bearing in mind, among other elements the matter in dispute. 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 possible.201 206. The jurisprudence of both the European Court and the Inter-American Court demonstrate various circumstances requiring a duty of special and exceptional diligence in the pursuit of investigations. Thus, for example, the Inter-American Court has stated that: in view of the importance of the interests under consideration, administrative and judicial procedures concerning the protection of the human rights of the child, particularly those legal proceedings related to adoption, guardianship and custody of boys and girls in early childhood, should be handled by the authorities with exceptional diligence and celerity 202. 207. In addition to the condition as children of the individuals involved, the Commission points out the statement of the European Court in the case Laudon v Germany, where especial diligence was required in those cases in which “the individual’s integrity is involved.” 203 208. Moreover, the European Court has decided cases in which the debate of the procedures was related to the situation of a person living with HIV. Specifically, in the case of X vs. France, it analyzed the lack of compliance with due process. Taking into account that “what was at stake in the judicial procedure was of crucial relevance for the petitioner”, given the nature of his disease204. In that regard, the European Court indicated that there was a risk that because of the delay in the procedure, its objective became illusory. In sum, the European Court indicated that in the mentioned case an “exceptional diligence” was required, despite the number of pending cases.205. In the case F.E v. France, the European Court stated that such diligence must apply even existing a certain level of complexity in these cases 206. 209. In addition to the foregoing factors, which are simultaneously present in the instan case, the Court has ruled on the necessity of pursuing criminal proceedings with special celerity when, due to the domestic legal context, the possibility of pursuing a civil suit for damages, and consequently, the real prospect of obtaining reparations, depends on the results of those criminal proceedings. 200 IACHR, Report on the Merits No. 77/02, Waldemar Gerónimo Pinheiro and José Víctor dos Santos (Case of 11.506), December 27, 2002, para. 76. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 132; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 166; and the Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 105; UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of August 23, 2007, Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 32, para.35. 201 I/A Court H.R., Case of Valle Jaramillo et. al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, para. 155. See also I/A Court H.R., Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, paras. 112 and 115; I/A Court H.R., Case of Anzualdo Castro v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 22, 2009. Series C No. 202, para. 156; I/A Court H.R., Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 133; See also. IACHR. Merits report 83-10. 12.584. July 13, 2010. Para. 77. 202 I/A Court H.R., Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246. para. 127. 203 Cr. EDH. Case of Laudon v. Germany, No. 14635/03. Fifth Section. Judgment of April 26, 2007. Para. 72. Cr. EDH. Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992. Para. 47. Cr. EDH. Case of X. vs. France. Application 18020/91. Judgment of March 31, 1992. Para. 47. 206 Cr. EDH. Case of F.E. vs. France. 60/1998/963/1178. Judgment of October 30, 1998. 204 205