4 I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND PURPOSE OF THE DISPUTE 1. The case submitted to the Court. – On July 13, 2017, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of Muelle Flores against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). According to the Commission, the case concerns the alleged violation of the right to effective judicial protection as a consequence of the State’s failure to comply, during 24 years, with a judgment issued in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, in the context of an application for amparo, which ordered his reinstatement in a pension scheme implemented under Decree Law N° 20530. The Commission determined that the State of Peru was internationally responsible, in the first place, because its own authorities failed to execute a judicial ruling favorable to Mr. Muelle and, secondly, owing to the ineffectiveness of the judicial mechanisms subsequently activated to achieve that compliance. The Commission also declared that the facts of the instant case constituted a violation of the guarantee of reasonable time and the right to property, given that the equalized pension to which Mr. Muelle Flores was entitled under the said Decree became part of his property, in accordance with the favorable judicial decision, and yet he was unable to enjoy that right. 2. Proceedings before the Commission. – The proceedings before the Commission were as follows: a) Petition. On April 8, 1998, the Commission received a petition submitted by the presumed victim, Oscar Muelle Flores, in which he alleged that the State was responsible for noncompliance with two amparo judgments that recognized his pension rights as a former employee of the State-owned mining Company Tintaya, together with his inclusion under the pension and benefits system stipulated in Decree Law No. 20530, and the renewable payment of his retirement pension. The petitioner also alleged that the State of Peru had not complied with its obligation to execute the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, in violation of the rights established in Articles 24 and 25 of the American Convention. b) Admissibility Report. On July 16, 2010, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No.106/10 (hereinafter the “Admissibility Report”), in which it concluded that Petition No. 147-98 was admissible in relation to Articles 8(1), 21 and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. However, it declared the petition inadmissible with regard to Article 24 thereof. c) Report on the Merits. On January 27, 2017, the Commission approved the Report on the Merits No. 3/17 (hereinafter “Merits Report” or “Report No. 3/17”), pursuant to Article 50 of the American Convention, in which it concluded that the State of Peru was responsible for the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, property and judicial protection, recognized in Articles 8(1), 21, 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores. The Commission likewise concluded that the State failed to meet its obligations under Article 2 of the Convention and made several recommendations to the State. 1 The Commission made a series of recommendations to the State, namely: “i) Comply as soon as possible with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993, and the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. This means that the Peruvian State must immediately take the steps needed to pay Mr. Muelle Flores his pension, on the terms recognized by the courts, that is to say, those of the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme. This includes paying him the pensions he did not receive from the date of his retirement through to the date on which payment is effected. Bearing in mind the standards set forth in this report on the obligations of the State in connection with the privatization of State-owned enterprises, Peru may not cite privatization as an excuse for not complying with this recommendation; ii) Make full reparation for the violations declared in this report, including due compensation for material (property) and immaterial damages, and iii) Adopt legislative and other measures needed to avoid the repetition of the violations declared in this report. In that regard, the State must take such steps as are needed to: a) Ensure that State-owned enterprises comply with the judicial rulings 1