alleged victim “has a favorable report in part,” nonetheless, there is no analysis about the evidentiary weight of that document, or why, despite that report, the alleged victim should not be ratified. 60. Finally, regarding that report of non-ratification, the Commission notes that it indicates that the vote was five votes in favor of ratifying, and five votes against. The Commission does not know the reasons why ten participated in the decision even though the legislation established that the Commission of Judges should be made up of seven persons; nonetheless it considers that the tie merited the Commission of Judges giving the reasons why, even though an equal number of votes were cast for and against ratification, it was determined not to ratify the alleged victim in her position. 61. Second, the Commission notes that the Supreme Court of Justice, in ruling on the motion for review filed by the petitioner, indicated that the decision not to ratify took into account the alleged victim’s nonperformance of job duties, which consisted of “one act did not include the judge’s signature,” “having authorized a certification of notice when the record does not show date of notice,” “not having sent out the official communications that were ordered by the court,” “having failed to note the dates on which deposits were made, as well as the deliveries, and not noting the number of the certificate or the quantity.” In addition, it indicated that “the appellant does not pay debts contracted, a situation that harms the image of the court.” The IACHR underscores that in that decision, the Court did not justify how such conduct was related to pre-established criteria for these definitions, nor was it sufficiently serious so as to justify the non-ratification of the alleged victim. Nor did it indicate the reasons why having debts could merit a decision which, in practice, entailed her dismissal from her position. 62. In view of all the considerations set forth in this section the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 9 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations set forth at Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Norka Moya Solís. D. The rights to a reasonable time and to judicial protection60 63. The IACHR recalls that the State is under a general obligation to provide effective judicial remedies to the persons who allege being victims of human rights violations, which should be substantiated in keeping with the rules of due process. In order for there to be an effective remedy it does not suffice for it to be provided for in law, but it must be suitable for establishing whether there has been a violation of human rights, and provide as necessary to remedy it.61 64. The Commission recalls that for the purposes of determining the reasonableness of the time a matter has been under consideration, inter-American case-law has developed four elements: (a) the complexity of the matter; (b) the procedural activity of the interested party; (c) the conduct of the judicial authorities; and (d) the impairment to the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.62 65. In addition, Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention provides that the states undertake to “ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” The Inter-American Court has indicated that in the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. “The first one is that the States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and Article 25(1) of the Convention stipulates: 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. 61 I/A Court HR, Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 125; I/A Court HR, Case of Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court HR, Case of “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98. Para. 136. 62 IACHR, Report No. 75/15, Case 12,923. Merits. Rocío San Miguel Sosa et al. Venezuela. October 28, 2015, para. 200; I/A Court HR, Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, para.112. 60