119. As per the provisions in Article 8.1 of the American Convention, and in the light of the specific circumstances of this case, the Commission will take into consideration the following four elements to analyze reasonability of the terms: i) the complexity of the issue; ii) the procedural activity on the part of the stakeholders; iii) the behavior of the judicial authorities; and iv) how the juridical situation affects the individuals involved in the process162. 120. In connection with complexity, the IACHR notes that, in principle, this el issue is not complex, since there is a final and binding court judgment that had to be executed. Notwithstanding that, even though the specific action to determine the net worth effects of said decision for each one of the beneficiaries could entail a certain degree of complexity, but it is absolutely disproportionate for the resolution of these issues to extend over a period of 23 years. 121. Regarding stakeholders’ involvement, the Commission notes that the State alleged that the delay in the process was due to the multiplicity of actions files by the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT. In that respect, the IACHR reminds all parties of the fact that the individuals affected filing actions or remedies available in the internal legal system so as to seek enforcement of a court judgment is compatible with their rights and in itself does not imply a justification for delays in the process. In this case, the Commission has observed that the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT followed and promoted the execution of the judgment, and the complained many times about the delay in the proceedings. In this sense, the State has failed to demonstrate that the actions of ANCEJUB-SUNAT constituted an obstacle or deferment beyond the exercise of legal means seeking enforcement of the judgment. 122. Regarding the behavior of the of judicial authorities, the Commission repeats all of the terms stated in paragraphs 110, 111 and 112 of this Report, about the way in which the judicial authorities actions during the judgment execution stage has been remarkably ineffective to solve aspects that are indispensable for enforcement. 123. As for the fourth element, the Court has stated that in order to determine reasonability of the term what has to be considered is how the duration of the process affects the legal situation of the individual involved in the process, as well as the interests at stake 163. The IACHR takes into account that when it comes to pensions, the time elapsed can have a very particular and impactful effect. Thus, the Commission noted that the petitioners informed that to date more than 100 members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT have passed away due to their age. Also, the IACHR has observed that many of these individuals are in a precarious financial and health condition, a piece of information that has not been challenged by the State. In that sense, the Commission considers that this element is applicable in this case and that it constitutes an additional factor to establish that the term is not reasonable. 124. To sum up, then, the Commission considers that the period of time elapsed –more than 23 years- without enforcing the judgment issued by the Supreme Court in October 1993 clearly exceeds a term that could be considered reasonable. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is also responsible for the violation of the right to a reasonable term established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention referring to the obligations set forth in Article 1.1 of the same legal instrument, against the individuals identified in the only Annex to this Report. 5. Right to private property vis-a-vis failure to execute internal judgments referring to pensions 162 IACHR, Report No. 28/16, Case 11,550, Admissibility and Merits, Maurilia Coc Max and others (Xaman Massacre), Guatemala, June 10, 2016. par. 145. Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Santo Domingo Massacre vs. Colombia. Preliminary Exceptions, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No.259, par. 164. 163 I/A Court HR. Case of Garibaldi vs. Brazil, Preliminary Exceptions, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, par. 138; Case of Valle Jaramillo and others, vs. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 155; and Case of Kawas Fernández vs. Honduras. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009 Series C No. 196, par. 115. 25