47. The Division ordered that "a new resolution be issued taking these considerations into account."70 The Commission has no information regarding subsequent proceedings. Notwithstanding, the IACHR observes that there is no dispute between the parties that, to date, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993 has not been executed. 48. According to the information available, Mr. Muelle is now 80 years old. V. ANALYSIS OF MERITS A. Prior consideration 49. The Commission observes that in its arguments the Peruvian State made reference to the decision issued by the Constitutional Court on June 3, 2005. In that regard the Commission deems it pertinent to undertake this prior consideration with a view to determining the scope of the case under review and the purpose of the analysis to follow. 50. The IACHR understands that the judgment of the Constitutional Court referred to by the State has to do with the constitutionality of the reform undertaken since 2004 to eliminate the rules for adjusting/updating pensions (régimen de nivelación de pensiones) established in Decree Law 20530. While the Inter-American Commission already pronounced on that reform and determined that it did not violate the American Convention,71 the legal issue posed in the instant case has to do with the alleged failure to comply with two amparo judgments that recognized that Mr. Muelle was entitled to certain pension rights under Decree Law 20530. The Commission wishes to make clear that the scope of said Decree, and the reforms amending the rules it contains, lie outside the issue at hand. B. Right to judicial guarantees, private property, and judicial protection (Articles 8.1, 72 21.173, and 25.2. c)74 of the American Convention in conjunction with Article 1.1 thereof) 1. General considerations regarding effective judicial protection and compliance with internal judgments 51. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that one of the components of the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American Convention is that States "[have an obligation to establish by law, and] ensure the application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process before the competent authorities."75 This is to effectively protect declared or recognized rights from acts that violate fundamental 70 Resolution No. 8 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Justice of October 10, 2013. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 71 IACHR, Report No. 38/09, Case 12.670, Admissibility and Merits, “National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al.,” Peru, March 27, 2009. 72 Article 8.1: 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. 73 Article 21.1: Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interests of society. 74 granted. Article 25.2.c: c. [The States Parties undertake] to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when 75 I/A Court HR. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, par. 65; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, par. 166. 10