“The respondents, Presidency of the Council of Ministers and the Judicial Branch, are ordered to comply with the order of the judgment contained in Resolution 44, incorporated in Resolution 45, and affirmed by the First Civil Chamber of Lima by resolution of April 6, 2016, and that they pay the plaintiff the sum of 20,000 nuevos soles for consequential damages, 50,000 nuevos soles for moral damages, and 586,000 nuevos soles and 50 cents for lost earnings for a total of 656,124 nuevos soles and 50 cents; it being understood that no discount should be made to any of the aforementioned amounts.” 10 50. On September 19, 2018, the chief officer of the Office of Legal Defense of the Judicial Branch informed the Management for Administration and Finance of the obligation to pay and the breakdown of the amount it should take into consideration of the judicial proceeding. In that same report it indicated: “… The aforementioned information is provided pursuant to Article 9(1) of Supreme Decree No. 0012014-JUS, approving the Regulation of Law 30137, which establishes criteria for prioritization for addressing the payment of court judgments.” 11 V. FINDINGS OF LAW A. Right to judicial protection 12 in relation to compliance with domestic judgments and reasonable time 13 1. General considerations on compliance with domestic judgments and effective judicial protection 51. Article 25(2)(c) provides that the states undertake “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” In this regard, the Inter-American Court has held that one of the components of the right to judicial protection, established at Article 25 of the American Convention is precisely that the States “guarantee the means for enforcing the respective decisions and final judgments handed down by … competent authorities so that they provide effective protection to the rights declared or recognized. This is because a judgment that is res judicata confers certainty on the right or dispute addressed in the specific case and therefore has as one of its effects the obligation or need for compliance.” 14 52. The Court has also indicated that the state has the obligation to enforce every decision in which it has been considered that the remedy is in order. This presupposes the guarantee of adequate and effective measures of coercion so that, if necessary, the authorities who hand down decisions or judgments can enforce them, and thereby give material effect to the protection of what is recognized in the final decision. 15 53. In this respect, the effectiveness of judgments depends on their enforcement. Any other situation is tantamount to the very denial of the right involved. 16 The IACHR has held that judicial decisions should be carried out, voluntarily or coercively if necessary. 17 In addition the Inter-American Court has emphasized that 10 Tenth Civil Court of Lima, Resolution No. 58 of July 5, 2018. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 11 Office of Legal Defense of the Judicial Branch (Procuraduría Pública del Poder Judicial), Official note No. 4394-2018-PP-P/PJ of September 19, 2018. Annex to the State’s brief of January 11, 2019. 12 Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights establishes in its relevant parts 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: … (c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 13 Article 8(1 ) of the Convention provides: “Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.” 14 I/A Court H.R.. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; Case Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 128. 15 Case of Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, supra, para. 128. 16 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Jaramillo v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006, para. 220. 17 IACHR. Case 12,357, Application before the I/A Court H.R., Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller, Peru, April 1, 2008, para. 53. 9