had become res judicata, and that no further remedies were in order, spelling out the amount that was to be paid. The Commission takes into account that the State noted, by its brief of January 11, 2019, that the payment would be made based on criteria of prioritization. In this respect, the Commission observes that the State has not taken any measure since the judgment handed down in 2016 to comply swiftly and effectively with the order of the judicial authorities to guarantee compensation for the damages that have been judicially recognized. 60. The Commission finds that the judgment that concluded the action for damages filed by the petitioner was handed down on April 6, 2016 by the First Civil Chamber of Lima, yet to date it has not been enforced. The Commission notes that in the instant case there is only one victim and there was already a firm judicial decision that should have been complied with or, lacking compliance, enforced. As regards the procedural activity of the interested party, one notes the procedural impetus on the part of Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre throughout the enforcement process. With respect to the conduct of the authorities, the Commission notes that despite a firm court judgment in 2016, and an order to pay issued in 2018, the judicial authorities were unable, with their activity, to provide the resources and take the measures needed to secure compliance with the decision. Finally, as regards the impairment of the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding, the Commission observes that the compensation sought by the petitioner is related to reparations for his arbitrary dismissal from his position as judge, in 1992, and the salaries and benefits that he ceased receiving as a result, up until 2004 when he was reinstated. In consideration of the foregoing, the Commission observes that the drawing out of enforcement of the judgment has had an impact on the legal situation of Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre. 61. Accordingly, the Commission finds that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights established at Articles 8(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same international instrument, to the detriment of Yangali Iparraguirre. VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 62. The Commission finds that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the rights established in Article 8(1) (judicial guarantees) and Article 25(2)(c) (judicial protection) of the American Convention on Human Rights, in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument. 63. Based on the analysis and conclusions of this report, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS TO THE STATE OF PERU THAT IT: 1. Adopt the measures necessary for there to be compliance by the Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial Branch with the decision handed down on May 12, 2014. 2. Adopt the payment of compensation to the victim for the violation found in this report, specifically, the failure to adopt adequate measures to guarantee the enforcement of a court judgment. 11