5 careful and abundant reasoning, established a unanimous position. 34. In fact, the above-mentioned decisions are in line with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, where there had been several earlier precedents in this regard. 35. Consequently, the requirement of promptness in judicial proceedings is not new, and goes back to the most important treaties for the protection of human rights, which should be implemented by Brazil 5 and throughout the Americas. IV. Conclusion 36. The Court found that the Brazilian State had violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, and the States members of the inter-American human rights system should heed this ruling, in the sense of reforming their judicial bodies to adjust the processing of cases to the duration required by the norms and by the citizens of the Americas, transcending this stage of chronic non-compliance with legal time limits by the courts and by the rest of the system, such as the police, in the instant case, whose investigation took more than 60 times the legal 30-day time limit to conclude the inquiry. 37. Delays are among the most serious judicial errors committed by the State, and must be compensated according to international law. Procedural promptness engenders fluidity and respect in social relations, appropriate to the level of development to which the nations of the Americas aspire. Roberto Figueiredo Caldas Judge Ad Hoc Pablo Saavedra Alessandri Secretary 5 According to the precept established in the Constitution by Constitutional Amendment No. 45, of 2004: “Art. 5. (...) LXXVIII –Everyone shall be ensured a reasonable duration of proceedings in the judicial and administrative sphere, and the means to guarantee promptness in their processing.”