constitutes denial of justice.165 In this regard, pursuant to Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention,166 the State’s responsibility does not end when the competent authorities deliver a ruling or judgment, but also require the State to ensure the means to execute final judgments in order to provide effective protection to the rights that have been declared. 167 Specifically, the Court has indicated that execution of judgment must be governed by those standards that respect the principles, inter alia, of judicial protection, due process, legal certainty, judicial independence and the rule of law.168 159. Consequently, the refusal of the Legislature and the Supreme Court of Justice to recognize the validity and the effects of the judgments handed down by the Constitutional Chamber, and the consequent failure to execute the actions ordered by the latter (supra paras. 44 and 45), signified that the judicial remedies filed by the presumed victims to claim the protection of their rights were ineffective. 160. In this regard, the Inter-American Court must underscore the serious interference in the judicial authorities’ functions that the actions of the Legislature signified in this specific case. Indeed, the content of Resolution No. 1, in addition to directly questioning the legal criteria underlying Judgments Nos. 951 and 952, included an explicit admonition that had the serious consequence of impeding the independent exercise of the jurisdictional function and, under no circumstances, can this be considered compatible with a democratic regime of the separation of powers. 161. The Court recalls that Article 3 of the Inter-American Democratic Charter includes, as one of the “essential elements of representative democracy, […] the separation of powers and independence of the branches of government.” In this regard, as recently indicated in Advisory Opinion OC-28/21, the separation of powers “is closely related to the purpose of preserving freedom” because, by limiting the scope of the functions of each state organ, it avoids a concentration of power. Thus, the separation of powers, although it supposes the existence of a system of control and oversight (“checks and balances”), is addressed at ensuring an adequate equilibrium or “balance between the branches of government.”169 Moreover, under a democratic regime, arbitrary interference by any state organ in the tasks that correspond to another cannot be tolerated. 162. Ultimately, the vigorous and threatening pronouncement of the National Congress resulted in an action by the members of the Supreme Court of Justice that was evidently problematic from different perspectives, including the procedural aspect, and their intervention contributed to ensure the ineffectiveness of the judicial remedies that had been filed and, in the end, prevented the protection of the presumed victims’ rights in the domestic sphere. 163. As evidence of the above, it is sufficient to indicate that when issuing a resolution that Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra, para. 24, and Case of Cordero Bernal v. Peru, supra, para. 100. 166 Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention establishes: “Judicial Protection. […] 2. The States Parties undertake: […] (c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 167 Cf. Case of San Miguel Sosa et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 208, and Case of Hernández v. Argentina. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 22, 2019. Series C No. 395, para. 130. 168 Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 105, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory of Santo Antônio de Jesus v. Brazil, supra, para. 243. 169 Cf. Indefinite Presidential Re-election under Presidential Systems in the Context of the Inter-American System of Human Rights (Interpretation and scope of Articles 1, 23, 24 and 32 of the American Convention on Human Rights, XX of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, 3.d of the Charter of the Organization of American States and of the Inter-American Democratic Charter). Advisory Opinion OC-28/21 of June 7, 2021. Series A No. 28, paras. 80 to 82. 165 41