alleged victim was reinstated and obtained reparation that satisfies inter-American standards. Accordingly, it alleged that the measures adopted domestically cured and made reparation for the alleged violations. 34. In the instant case, the Commission observes that despite the legal impediment in Decree-Law No. 25496, the amparo action filed by the petitioner was finally resolved favorably by the Third Civil Chamber of Lima, making possible his effective reinstatement to his judicial post on March 2, 2004. 35. In this regard, the 64th Court Specialized in Civil Matters of Lima, which took cognizance of the amparo action in first instance, established in its decision of June 16, 2003, that: “one can appreciate that certainly the plaintiff was removed from the position he held as principal judge by application of Decree Laws 25492 and 25494, it being noted that said situation violated the laws and the constitutional order in force at the time, which guaranteed the judges of the Supreme Court of Justice permanence up to the age of 70, as well as tenure in the position so long as they observed the conduct and suitability particular to the function, and that they could be removed by resolution after an administrative proceeding, accordingly it was an obligation of the State to conduct an administrativedisciplinary proceeding prior to removing the plaintiff, which required that one not only respect the right to defense, but also guarantee due process, before proceeding to remove him from the position. Yet in the instant case these procedures were not followed, as the above-noted decrees were issued with no stated justification and he was removed without any allegation of professional misconduct.” 36. The same court declared that those decrees were inapplicable to the plaintiff and ordered his immediate reinstatement as Principal Judge and that the time not worked be counted for purposes of seniority and for determining his pension. 37. Similarly, the judgment on review of October 21, 2003 handed down by the Third Civil Chamber of Lima considered that “the aim of the amparo is to return to the state of affairs prior to the violation or threat of violation, therefore, one must seek to have the petitioner’s rights restored,” and affirming the judgment it ordered that the relevant authorities proceed as ordered by the judge below. 38. In addition, according to what was stated by both the petitioner and the State, Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre at present sits on the Third Criminal Chamber for Trials with Defendants in the Superior Court of Justice of Lima. Therefore, the Commission considers that the alleged violation ceased. 39. In that regard the Commission will analyze, in the merits phase, the possible existence of the alleged failure to enforce the judgment that determined the payment of compensation for damages to the alleged victim, which if proven could constitute a violation of the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention in relation to its Article 1(1). IV. FINDINGS OF FACT A. Relevant legal framework 40. The Commission noted that the instant case is related to the enforcement of a judgment in favor of the alleged victim in a case against the Judicial Branch and the Presidency of the Council of Ministers. The case seeking compensation for damages is regulated in the Civil Code and in Supreme Decree No. 013-2008-JUS. 41. The Civil Code provides: Article 1321 (Compensation for fraud, ordinary and inexcusable negligence). One who does not carry out his or her obligations due to fraud, inexcusable negligence, or ordinary negligence is subject to the payment of compensation for damages. Compensation for failure to perform the obligation or for its partial, late, or defective performance includes both consequential damages and lost earnings, insofar as they are the immediate and direct consequence of such failure to perform. 6