the remedy established in domestic law, and the context in which the violation occurred. 220 In this case, the Court observes that, under the application for amparo, a certain degree of complexity existed as regards the plurality of applicants and owing to the context in which this remedy was filed, because it related to people living with HIV, and therefore their rights to health and to life were involved. The Court considers that these characteristics made the analysis of the merits of the matter and the processing of the application more complex. 183. Regarding the procedural activity of the interested parties, the Court notes that the presumed victims promoted procedural momentum and that there is no information of activities aimed at obstructing the application for amparo. Accordingly, it is not possible to conclude that there was any delay on the part of the applicants for amparo. 184. In relation to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court notes that the application for amparo was filed on July 26, 2002. Subsequently, in an order of October 18, the Constitutional Court granted the parties 48 hours to present their arguments at a hearing. Then, in a ruling on January 29, 2003, it merely declared that the application for amparo was inadmissible. In this regard, the Court notes that there is no evidence of procedural inactivity on the part of the authorities, or that they took steps that could have delayed the proceeding. 185. With regard to the fourth element, the Court has indicated that, to determine the reasonableness of the time, it is necessary to take into account the effect caused by the duration of the proceedings on the legal situation of the person involved, considering, among other aspects, the matter in dispute. Thus, the Court has established that, if the passage of time has a relevant impact on the legal situation of the individual, the proceeding must be conducted more promptly in order to decide the case rapidly. In the instant case, the Court finds it relevant to recall that the application for amparo filed by the presumed victims involved people living with HIV who depended on medical care to avoid adverse effects on their health, their personal integrity and their life, and this involved an enhanced obligation to respect and to ensure their rights. The Court considers that, when deciding the remedy that was filed, the authorities took into account the vulnerability of the presumed victims and the risk of affecting the rights in question. 186. Based on the above, the Court finds that it has been proved sufficiently that the prolongation of the proceedings in this case, given its characteristics, had an impact on the legal situation of the applicants, because owing to the delay in the settlement of the case, the possibility of the delivery of antiretroviral drugs was delayed, which resulted in a risk to their rights to health, personal integrity and life. Consequently, based on the duration and the characteristics of the proceedings, as well as on the actions of the presumed victims and of the authorities, the Court concludes that the delay of approximately six months in deciding the application for amparo filed by the 13 presumed victims constituted a violation of the reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. B.3. Conclusion 187. The Court has established that the competent authority’s examination of a judicial remedy in which constitutional rights are in dispute cannot be reduced to a mere formality and ignore the arguments of the parties, because it must examine their reasons and rule on Cf. Inter alia, Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 29, 1997. Series C No. 30, para. 78, and Case of Amrhein et al. v. Costa Rica. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 25, 2018. Series C No. 354, para. 424. 220 64