20. Regarding the domestic procedure for carrying out decisions of the Constitutional Court, this Court recalls that in its Judgment it found that “[what] remain[ed] pending in that process on the date of the [...] the Judgment’s issuance, [was] the determination of the amount in question.”12 The Court thus repeats the following from that occasion: [Although] the Tribunal acknowledge[d] that Peruvian laws contemplate a procedure to execute judgments [in which] certain decisions must be made in order to comply with the rulings of the Constitutional Court and different orders must be issued. [The lack of judicial determination of the appropriate amount], rather than exonerating the State from its responsibility, demonstrates the ineffectiveness of the remedies instituted to guarantee those rights that the Constitutional Court found to have been violated, and this is not a reasonable justification for the nonimplementation of the final judgments of said court. The State's obligation to guarantee the efficacy of its judicial recourses is derived from the American Convention and such obligation cannot be limited by domestic procedure provisions or exclusively depend on the procedural effort of the plaintiff to the proceedings.13 21. The Court takes note of the State’s comments in this regard, as well as the representative’s comments, which show that it was not until March 3, 2010 that a resolution of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, supposedly, finally and definitively established the aforementioned amount (supra Considering Clause 15). Additionally, the Court finds that following issuance of its Judgment, the State authority responsible for its execution –the Office of the Comptroller of the Republic– has continued to file appeals during the implementation process of the rulings of the Constitutional Court and this has prevented effective compliance with this reparation measure. The Court stresses that the Office of the Comptroller has been engaged in this sort of litigation both before issuance of the Sixth Civil Chamber’s resolution of March 3, 2010, and after this order conclusively established the amounts owed to the victims (supra Considering Clause 15). The Court emphasizes that, in ruling on the Office of the Comptroller General’s appeal against the latest expert’s report carried out in the course of executing the Constitutional Court’s decisions, the Sixth Civil Chamber found that the Office of the Comptroller General’s objections were largely unfounded.14 22. Moreover, the Office of the Comptroller General has taken on said attitude despite that indicated by this Court in regard to the fact that the excessive period of time that has passed for the execution of the mentioned judgments has meant that the right to effective judicial protection of the victims is “at least partially illusory,”15as well as that indicated by the national tribunal itself in that “a considerable and prolonged period of time has passed,” partly as a consequence of “the successive and profuse requests made by the defendant.”16 However, the Court observes that, when this Order was issued, the State had not submitted information nor had it referred in its reports to the cited decision of the Sixth Civil Chamber that allegedly definitively established the amount owed to the victims, nor has it referred to the subsequent measures taken in this regard, despite it having been specifically requested, 12 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 64. 13 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 76. 14 Cf. Order of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of March 3, 2010, provided by the representative together with the brief of July 2010, Considering Clause 14 and 22. 15 Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. ("Dismissed and Retired Workers of the Comptroller's Office") v. Peru, supra note 9, para. 77. 16 Order of the Sixth Civil Chamber, supra note 14, Considering Clause 6.