-89the appeal for legal protection proceedings, ordering protection of plaintiffs’ rights.162 It is also necessary that there are effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments, so that the declared rights are protected effectively. As it is established (supra. Para. 167) one of the effects of the judgment is its binding character. The enforcement of judgments should be considered an integral part of the right to access to the remedy, encompassing also full compliance with the respective decision. The contrary would imply the denial of this right. 221. Pursuant to Article 139(2) of the Political Constitution of Peru “[…N]o authority may […] void resolutions that have become res judicata, nor terminate ongoing procedures, nor modify judgments nor delay their enforcement.” 222. Pursuant to Act. No. 23506 on Habeas Corpus and amparo of 1982, Article 8 “[a] final decision constitutes res judicata only when it is favorable to the party filing the remedy.” In addition, Article 6 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure of 2004 sets forth that “[i]n constitutional proceedings only a final judgment on the merits is res judicata.” In light of the foregoing, the 24 judgments the non-compliance with which is alleged in the instant case, are res judicata, with its ensuing effects. 223. As regards the enforcement of said judgments, Article 27 of Act. No. 23506 on Habeas Corpus and amparo of 1982 sets forth that “accepted or enforceable final decisions in guarantee proceedings shall be executed by the judge, division or court which heard them at first instance, in accordance with the manner and form established by the Code of Civil Procedure, Titles XXVIII and XXX, Chapter 2, to the extent they are compatible with their nature.” 224. Furthermore, Article 59 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure of 2004, when referring to the “Enforcement of the Judgment”, sets forth that: […] final judgment on a complaint shall be complied with within two days after service thereof […]. When a final judgment orders the performance of a monetary obligation and the obligor is materially prevented from performing his obligation, the obligor shall inform this situation to the Court [,] which may grant an extension not exceeding four months, upon expiration of which coercive measures shall be applicable […] 225. As regards Peru’s argument that compliance with the judgments was subject to vacancy and budget availability, the Court considers that insofar as these judgments decide on guarantee remedies, on account of the special nature of the protected rights, the State must comply with them as soon as practicable, adopting all necessary measures to that end. Delay in executing a judgment may not be such as to allow that the very essence of the right to an effective recourse be impaired and, consequently, that the right protected by the judgment be adversely affected. Budget regulations may not be used as an excuse for many years of delay in complying with the judgments.163 226. The Court will apply the criteria described in the foregoing paragraphs when analyzing the 24 judgments, the non-compliance with which is alleged in this case, 162 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction, supra note 7, para. 82. 163 Cf. Case of “Amat-G” LTD and Mebaghishvili v. Georgia, EHCR; judgment of September 2005, para. 48; Popov v. Maldova, No. 74153/01, para. 54; judgment of January 18, 2005; and Shmalko v. Ukraine, No. 60750/00, para. 44, judgment of July 20, 2004.