129. The Commission also discussed the guarantee of a reasonable period, pointing out that over twenty years had elapsed in the thirteen proceedings since final verdicts had been delivered, during which none had been carried out, and this was unreasonable. It argued that the main obstacle to complying with the judgments was not the alleged procedural inactivity of the teachers or the complexity of the matter, but that municipal budgets lacked the necessary resources. Thus, it believed that the State was responsible for violating Article 8(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2. 130. Finally, with respect to the right to property, the Commission pointed to case law in which the Court had developed a broad understanding of property, including entitlements, and that it had considered the failure to abide by judicial orders to provide access to pension programs entailed a violation of the right to property. It argued that the alleged victims in the instant case had lodged judicial remedies to have the amounts owed them recognized and they had final, nonappealable verdicts upholding their claims, and therefore, these amounts were part of their personal net worth. It therefore claimed that the State had violated Article 21 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 131. The representatives, in turn, argued that the failure to comply with decades of judicial rulings constituted a breach both of effective judicial protection and of the right of persons to obtain judicial relief within a reasonable period. They argued that the State had violated its duty to respect and guarantee these rights as well as its obligation to adapt domestic legal effects, and therefore asked the Court to find violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2. 132. The representatives also recalled that the Court had developed a broad understanding of property, to include vested rights. They argued that the failure to execute the terms of final, nonappealable judgments that included people’s rights to their own wealth, translatable into a cash sum, is protected by the right to property, as the judicial finding of the amounts generates “ownership effects.” They therefore believed that the State had violated Article 21 of the Convention in injury of the alleged victims. They noted that this violation took place in association with the obligation to guarantee contained in Article 1(1) of the Convention, and also with Article 2 thereof, since the State had not developed mechanisms for compliance. 133. The State argued that the cause of action addressed, not the trial that produced the verdicts, but rather, the capacity for enforcing the verdicts. It explained that the applicants had built their case arguing that allegedly they had no legal tools available to bring about enforcement of the verdicts. It held, nonetheless, that in five of the cases,358 covering 523 teachers, the claimants had lodged no legal challenges against the particular courts involved, when these courts had merely “taken cognizance” of reports by the mayors who had refrained from signing mayoral executive orders or simply had not paid. Moreover, in three other cases representing forty-two teachers, claimants had waited too long and lodged time-barred petitions for mandatory collection, and they did not even appeal the specific order that denied accessory enforcement of judgment.359 It added that the enforcement phase for labor judgments was governed by clearly established rules and timetables, such that anyone receiving a favorable outcome could procure the sale of assets to proceed with payment of the obligation, but that all this required initiative 358 Cases of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994; Abarza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993; Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 and Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993. 359 Cases of Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993; Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 and Aravena Espinoza et al. v. the Municipality of de Pelluhue, Docket No. 222-1993. 47