their purpose349. Additionally, the provisions governing the independence of the judicial order must be made in an appropriate way so as to ensure the timely execution of the judgments without any interference by other branches of Government350 and guarantee the binding and obligatory nature of the decisions of last resort.351 The Court considers that in a system based on the principle of rule of law, all public authorities, within the framework of their jurisdiction, must take heed of judicial decisions and promote their execution without hindering the purpose and scope of the decision or unduly delaying its implementation.352 212. The Court considers that in the instant case, it has been proven that, after an unjustified delay in the civil suit for damages (supra para. 205), Sebastián Furlán had to begin a second administrative proceeding in order to obtain payment of the compensation awarded in the judgment. Notwithstanding the fact that the length of said enforcement process has already been analyzed in the preceding chapter (supra para. 147 to 152), the Court will examine the following arguments: i) whether the judgment was implemented in its entirety; ii) whether the application of Law 25.344 on economic- financial emergency was justified in the instant case, and iii) whether the foregoing had an impact on the right to property. 213. In the first place, the Court notes that the compensation awarded in favor of Sebastián Furlán was framed within Law 23.982 of 1991 (supra para. 103), for which he had to decide between two forms of payment: i) deferred payment in cash, or ii) payment in consolidated Bonds which could be redeemed in 16 years. Either of these two options meant that Sebastián Furlán was not able to immediately receive the sum of 130,000 Argentine pesos as compensation in his favor, but instead had to choose between the payment of a sum of money in installments or payment in bonds, for which he could only obtain their nominal value after 16 years. In this respect, it has been proven that due to his difficult financial circumstances (supra para. 104, 117) and the need to rapidly collect the money in order to pay for medical care (supra para. 71)353, Sebastián Furlan opted for the payment in consolidated bonds in national currency to be redeemed in 2016 (supra para. 104). This Court further notes that after the bonds were paid to the beneficiary, Mr. Danilo Furlan cashed them in at 33% of their nominal value. After paying the amount that he was required to pay in court costs and legal fees based on the 30-70% responsibility assigned in the judgment and subtracting 30 percent that corresponded to the lawyer, Sebastián Furlan finally received 116,063 pesos awarded in bonds, equivalent to approximately $38.000 Argentine pesos, of the 130,000 Argentine pesos ordered in the judgment. 214. Bearing these facts in mind, the Court considers that the judgment that awarded the compensation was not fully implemented, given that Sebastián Furlan should have received 130,000 Argentine pesos whereas he actually received approximately $38,000 Argentine 349 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. Cf. Advisory Opinion No.13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, Conclusions, H). 350 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. Cf. Advisory Opinion No. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, Conclusions, F), See also ECHR, Case of Matheus v. France, paras. 58 and subsq. 351 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. This means that compliance is mandatory, and that if they are not obeyed voluntarily, may be enforced coercively. 352 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 106. The European Court has established in the case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy that: “While it may be accepted that Contracting States may [...] intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision, the consequence of such intervention should not be that execution is prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed or, still less, that the substance of the decision is undermined”. Cf. ECHR, Case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy, para. 74. 353 Testimony of Claudio Furlan, rendered at the public hearing on February 27, 2012. 68