accident victims.175 In said case, the Court ruled that the almost nine-year duration of the proceedings until final judgment was rendered was excessive in itself, and that further prolonging it during the process of execution of judgment to eleven years and one month constituted a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time.176 119. The IACHR finds that the reasoning used in said case with regard to the special degree of diligence that should be applied by civil courts in determining damages awards in cases of accidents that result in severe disability, also applies to the instant case. The Commission notes that Sebastian sustained a severe disability as a result of the accident, the consequences of which required timely and multidisciplinary treatment and, in light of the precarious economic situation of the petitioner, he needed the award to be made available to him. 120. Furthermore, the Inter-American Court has stated that the guarantees set forth in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention are recognized as applying to all persons equally, and must exist in conjunction with the specific rights also enshrined in Article 19 (the rights of the child, which will be examined more thoroughly hereafter), and come to bear on any administrative or judicial proceeding in which any right of a child is at stake.177 Said Court has also established that judicial or administrative proceedings wherein children’s rights are at issue must adhere to the principles and standards of due process of law.178 Additionally, in analyzing reasonable time, the IACHR takes into account the fact that Sebastian Furlan was an adolescent when he sustained the permanent damage and, therefore, required the attention and rehabilitation befitting his stage of development. 121. In light of the foregoing, the Commission concludes that (a) this is not a case involving a great deal of complexity; (b) there is nothing in the record to indicate that the procedural activity of the interested party has been negligent or dilatory; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities, particularly with regard to the delay that marred the serving of notice of the complaint, was not diligent; and (d) the infringement of Sebastian’s rights due to the length of time was and continues to be severe, taking into account the need for timely and effective rehabilitation and treatment for his disability. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that there was unwarranted delay in the suit for damages, which took ten years until the final judgment was rendered and, then, another two years until the award in bonds was credited to the account of the petitioner. 122. Based on the above, the Commission finds that the Argentine State violated, to the detriment of Sebastian and Danilo Furlan, the right to be heard within a reasonable time and the right to a simple and prompt recourse, as an important part of the right to a fair trial and judicial protection, as provided in Articles 8.1 and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with the general obligation to ensure the free and full exercise of the human rights established in Article 1.1 thereof. 175 ECHR, Silva Pontes vs. Portugal, March 23, 1994, Series A No. 286-A, p. 15, para. 39. 176 ECHR, Silva Pontes vs. Portugal, March 23, 1994, Series A no. 286-A, p. 15, paras. 38, 40-42. In another related case of delay in an administrative proceeding pertaining to a damages award for HIV transmission from a blood transfusion, taking into account the significance of the passage of time on the situation of the interested party (in becoming an HIV carrier) and his life expectancy, the European Court ruled that the duration of the two-year-long case was excessive, in light of the fact that by the time the ruling was issued, the victim had already developed AIDS and also considering that the court had not exercised its power to speed up the proceedings of the case, once the deterioration of the the victim’s health status came to its attention. ECHR, X v. France, no. 18020/91, March 31, 1992, paras. 31, 32, 47, 48 and 49. 177 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002, para. 95. 178 I/A Court H.R., Juridical Status and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 August 28, 2002, operative point No. 10.