the enforcement of judgments should be governed by those specific standards that make it possible to give effect to the principles, inter alia, of judicial protection, due process, juridical security, judicial independence, and the rule of law. 18 54. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has held that to attain the full effect of the judgment, enforcement should be complete, perfect, integral 19, and without delay. 20 In addition, it has indicated that the right to a fair trial would be illusory if the domestic legal system of the State allows for a final and binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one of the parties. In this respect that Court has held that the enforcement of judgments handed down by courts should be considered an integral part of a trial. 21 55. The Inter-American Court has held that in a legal system based on the principle of the rule of law all public authorities, within the scope of their competence, should heed court decisions and give impetus to and enforce them. 22 Along these lines, the IACHR has noted that “securing the enforcement of court judgments does to the very essence of the rule of law.” 23 56. As regards the reasonable time in relation to the stage of enforcement of judgments, the Court notes that it must be shorter due to the existence of a firm decision regarding a specific matter. It is inadmissible for a procedure to enforce a judgment to distort the implementation, in time, of what was decided in a final judgment, or any other judgment, so as to render it ineffective, prolonging in an exaggerated or indefinite manner the litigious situation that has already been resolved. In these cases, the judicial guarantee of reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the American Convention must be analyzed along with the duty of the state to act with particular celerity in enforcing domestic decisions. 24 2. Analysis of the instant case 57. It is not controverted, in the instant case, that the domestic courts recognized that Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre should receive compensation for damages due to his removal from his position as judge. Accordingly, the Tenth Civil Court of Lima, by Resolution No. 44 of May 12, 2014, found that the petitioner’s action was well-founded and ordered the payment of 20,000 nuevos soles for consequential damages, 50,000 nuevos soles for moral damages, and 586,124.56 nuevos soles for lost earnings. 58. This decision was appealed by Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre, and on April 6, 2016 the First Civil Chamber of Lima affirmed the decision appealed, and also established that no discount whatsoever should be applied to the sums indicated. Subsequently, the Tenth Civil Court issued Resolution No. 58 of July 5, 2018, ordering the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial Branch to carry out the mandate of the Resolution of April 6, 2016, and the amounts defined there. 59. Regarding the evidence in the record, the Commission observes that despite the adoption of the judgment that ordered the payment of compensation to Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre in April 2016, the Judicial Branch and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers did not carry out the order of the First Civil Chamber of Lima. The Commission notes that two years later, i.e. on July 5, 2018, the Tenth Civil Chamber of Lima ordered the respondent to carry out the obligation established in the judgment, which to date has not happened. Moreover, it is noted that on September 19, 2018 the chief officer of the Office of Legal Defense of the Judicial Branch informed the Management for Administration and Finance that the obligation recognized in favor of Mr. Yangali 18 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 105, and Case of the Garífuna Community of Punta Piedra and its members v. Honduras. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No. 304, para. 244. 19 ECHR, Case of Matheus v. France. Judgment of March 31, 2005, para. 58; and Case of Sabin Popescu v. Romania. Judgment of March 2, 2004, paras. 68 ff. 20 ECHR, Case of Cocchiarella v. Italy. Judgment of March 29, 2006, para. 89. 21 ECHR. Case of Hornsby v. Greece. Judgment of March 19, 1997, para. 27. 22 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106. 23 IACHR, Case 12,357, Application before the I/A Court H.R., Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller, Peru, April 1, 2008, para. 54. 24 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 157. 10