24 Order. 65. Once it has been established that the State’s obligation, as derived from the judgments in question, includes the payment of the pension amounts withheld from April 1993 to October 2002, the Tribunal shall now examine whether the State has committed the violation of or non-compliance with Articles 21, 25 and 26 of the Convention. C) The right to judicial protection 66. The Commission argued that "the remedies of amparo filed by the [alleged] victims, […] were not simple, or prompt or effective”, and consequently, the State violated Article 25 of the Convention It pointed out that “[in] the first place, the mere fact that the [alleged] victims were forced to filed a second action for amparo in order to enforce the decision handed down in the first action, shows that they were not simple remedies. […] In the second place, given the protective nature of the remedies filed, the answer of the judicial authorities should have been given with all possible promptness […]; nevertheless, between the filing of the first remedy of amparo, […] and the delivery of the final judgment over such remedy, four years and five months have elapsed and between the filing of the second remedy, […] almost two years; that is, none of the two remedies were prompt. […] In the third place, [pursuant to Article 25 of the American Convention] the procedure must tend to the implementation of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial decision by means of the appropriate application of [such] [which] has not occurred in the case at hand with the two amparos filed [, therefore], the recourses were not effective”. Besides, the Commission “noted that the State did not adopt measures to reduce or overcome the budgetary constraints alleged as to the lack of economic resources, such as the programming and implementation of a repayment schedule or financing plan in favor of the pensioners of the Comptroller, in order to effectively comply with said judgments”, “resulting in an unwarranted delay of more than 10 years for the effective implementation of [those judgments]”. 67. Moreover, the representative alleged that “the non-compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court […] constitutes a [specific] violation of Article 25(1) and 25(2)(c) [of the Convention]”. According to the representative, said Articles have been violated as follows: “1) because, to date, more than 11 years after the first judgment was handed down, its rulings remain unfulfilled […]; 2) owing to the existence in Perú of a widespread practice of failing to comply with judicial rulings; 3) because no measures have been adopted to deal with, overcome, or reduce the budgetary constraints cited by the State as the reason for its failure to comply with such judgments, and 4) because the noncompliance with the judicial rulings […] implies an ongoing violation of the right to social security of the [alleged] victims��. In accordance with the representative, "the non-compliance with the judicial mandates […] perpetuates the violation that was supposed to be repaired, not just by means of the judicial determination of the right, but by means of the subsequent enforcement or compliance with the judgment. If judicial decisions are not complied with, the violated right remains violated and that violation is, in turn, a violation of the right to judicial protection”. 68. The State alleged that, “the non-compliance with the obligations contained in Articles 21 and 25 of the Convention has not been proven”. This, because “since October 2002 [...] it had been paying pegged remunerations to the 273 members of the Association [...], as ordered by the first judgment [of the Constitutional Court] and as reiterated in the second judgment [of such court].” As to the payment of the pension amounts withheld from 1993 to 2002, the State