57 j) As to the existence of procedures permitting the enforcement of fundamental rights, there are six types of protective measure, which are regulated in the Constitution. Such recourses were only used effectively in February 2002. Moreover, Peru “has guaranteed compliance with the decisions, creating mechanisms to make them effective, and it has not been demonstrated, as required according to the principles of the burden of proof, that it has in any way interfered with the execution of the said rulings”; k) Since no judicial proceeding was filed against the MEF or other State body, owing to the application of Decree Law No. 25792, “it is evident that the fundamental presumption for filing a proceeding before the Court does not exist, because domestic remedies have not been exhausted[, …] which implied having cited the Ministry of Economy and Finance, through the respective Public Attorney responsible for the defense of the State, regarding the actions of this Ministry.” In view of the lack of a complaint, this Ministry has “acted, based on the conviction that its processing of the pensions of the pensioners was correct”; l) The judicial decisions issued as a result of the applications for protective measures have special execution mechanisms, such as coercion of the responsible official and the latter’s possible civil liability for noncompliance. “The correct use of this procedural mechanism would have ensured compliance with the decision – as it subsequently did. Therefore, the State of Peru cannot be accused of not complying with judicial decisions if all the existing execution mechanisms regulated by domestic legislation had not been exhausted’; and m) “The pensioners filed several actions, including criminal proceedings, which were dismissed, which only shows that they were not filed appropriately.” Considerations of the Court 125. Article 25 of the Convention establishes that: 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. 2. The States Parties undertake: a. to ensure that any person claiming such remedy shall have his rights determined by the competent authority provided for by the legal system of the state; 126. b. to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy; and c. to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted The Court has said that: […] it is not enough that such recourses exist formally; they must be effective; that is, they must give results or responses to the violations of rights established in the Convention. This Court has also held that remedies that, due to the general situation of the country or even the particular circumstances of any given case, prove illusory cannot be considered effective. This may happen when, for example, they prove to be useless