The guarantee of a reasonable time:
between effective judicial protection and human dignity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61454/7h25q804Keywords:
reasonable time, procedural guarantees, effective judicial protection, ; Inter-American Human Rights System, human dignity, conventionality controlAbstract
This paper examines the principle of a reasonable time in judicial proceedings as a structural component of due process, grounded in Article 32 of the Panamanian Constitution and further developed under Article 8(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. It argues that this principle should not be understood merely as a temporal requirement, but rather as a complex right encompassing access to justice, effective investigation, the availability of adequate judicial remedies, and the sanctioning of those responsible. The study highlights the relevance of the so-called “Velásquez Rule,” derived from the case Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras (1988), in shaping the positive obligations of the State, particularly in relation to the prevention, investigation, and reparation of human rights violations. This jurisprudential development transforms the role of the State, imposing an ex officio duty to act that goes beyond the initiative of the victim. Furthermore, the paper analyzes the performance of the Panamanian judicial system between 2017 and 2024, identifying a sustained trend toward the reduction of judicial backlog and the strengthening of institutional decision-making capacity. However, structural factors that negatively affect the effective realization of the reasonable time guarantee are also identified, including judicial overload, hearing rescheduling, dilatory tactics by the parties, and organizational limitations. The study also addresses the criteria developed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to assess the reasonableness of time, emphasizing the complexity of the case, the conduct of the parties, and the behavior of judicial authorities. Finally, it establishes that the failure to comply with this principle directly affects human dignity, understood as the axiological core of both constitutional and conventional legal orders, whose violation entails the obligation of comprehensive reparation, including non-material damages.
Downloads
References
Barrios, J. (2011). El proceso penal consultivo. [Editorial si aplica, o Ciudad].
Barrios, J. (2016). Tratado de derecho procesal penal. [Editorial].
Binder, A. (2000). Introducción al derecho procesal penal. Ad-Hoc.
Comité de Derechos Humanos de la ONU. (2004). Observación General No. 31: La naturaleza de la obligación jurídica general impuesta a los Estados Partes en el Pacto. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org
Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. (22 de noviembre de 1969). Pacto de San José de Costa Rica. https://www.oas.org/dil/esp/1969_Convencion_Americana_sobre_Derechos_Humanos.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (1988, 29 de julio). Caso Velásquez Rodríguez vs. Honduras. Fondo. https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_04_esp.pdf
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (1997, 29 de enero). Caso Genie Lacayo vs. Nicaragua. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (1999, 19 de noviembre). Caso Villagrán Morales y otros (Niños de la Calle) vs. Guatemala. Fondo. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2000, 25 de noviembre). Caso Bámaca Velásquez vs. Guatemala. Fondo. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2001, 2 de febrero). Caso Baena Ricardo y otros vs. Panamá. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2001, 6 de febrero). Caso Ivcher Bronstein vs. Perú. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2008, 27 de noviembre). Caso Ticona Estrada y otros vs. Bolivia. Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2009, 27 de enero). Caso Tristán Donoso vs. Panamá. Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. (2012, 31 de agosto). Caso Furlan y familiares vs. Argentina. Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. https://www.corteidh.or.cr
De Greiff, P. (2014). Informe del Relator Especial sobre la promoción de la verdad, la justicia, la reparación y las garantías de no repetición. Naciones Unidas.
Ferrajoli, L. (2005). Derecho y garantías: La ley del más débil. Trotta.
Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (1945). Carta de las Naciones Unidas. https://www.un.org/es/about-us/un-charter
Organización de las Naciones Unidas. (1948). Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos. https://www.un.org/es/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Órgano Judicial de Panamá. (2025). Indicadores de la administración de justicia 2017–2024. https://organojudicial.gob.pa
Zaffaroni, E. (2011). Derecho penal humano. Ediar.
Zaffaroni, E. (2017). Derecho penal: Parte general. Ediar.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Revista Jurídica Latinoamericana

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.



