against the municipalities therefore breached the vested rights to moneys that had become part of the victims’ personal wealth. The Court concludes, as a result, that the State violated the right to property recognized in Article 21 of the Convention. B.6. Conclusion 192. The Court recalls that the unjustified delay in complying with a judgment is per se a violation of the right to judicial guarantees. In the instant case, the Court concludes that the processes for enforcing the judgments delivered in favor of the 846 teachers were irregular and ineffective for the following reasons: lack of clarity concerning the court’s action on its own motion in the process of enforcing judgments; the ineffectiveness of mechanisms available through domestic regulations to guarantee compliance with the judgments against the municipalities; and the lack of any provisions requiring the State to provide funding to the municipalities, as part of the single unified State, to pay the debts created through final, non-appealable judgments. Furthermore, considering that the victims in this case are elderly and that many have grown old and even died while waiting over twenty-five years for enforcement of these verdicts, the Court finds that the State has failed in its reinforced duty to guarantee due diligence in access to justice for older persons and expeditious processes involving this vulnerable population. Finally, by failing to pay the amounts established in final judicial rulings, the State breached the teachers’ vested rights to their personal wealth. 193. Based on these considerations, the Court holds the State responsible for violating Articles 8(1), 21, 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, in injury of the individuals listed by name in Annex 1 of this judgment. IX REPARATIONS 194. Pursuant to the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has held that every violation of an international obligation which results in harm creates a duty to make adequate reparation, and that this provision reflects a customary norm that constitutes one of the fundamental principles of contemporary international law on State responsibility.439 This Court has also established that reparations must have a causal nexus with the facts of the case, the alleged violations, the proven damages, as well as the measures requested to repair the resulting damages. Therefore, the Court must observe such coincidence in order to adjudge and declare according to law.440 195. Accordingly, and in view of the considerations set forth on the merits and the violations of the Convention as declared in this judgment, the Court will proceed to examine the petitions made by the Commission and the representatives, as well as the responses offered by the State, Andreadis v. Greece, Judgment of December 9, 1994, Series A No. 301-B, para. 59, and ECtHR, Mazzeo v. Italy, No. 32269/09. Judgment of October 5, 2017, para. 47. Along the same lines, the European Court also emphasized that neither a municipality nor any other government institution can claim lack of resources to justify nonpayment of a debt based on the decision of a court of justice. Cfr. For the case of a municipality, ECtHR, Mazzeo v. Italy, No. 32269/09. Judgment of October 5, 2017, para. 44. Also see Bourdox v. Russia, No. 59498/00, para. 35 and Cocciarella v. Italy, No. 64886/01, par.90. 439 Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 21, 1989. Series C No. 7, para. 25, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 158. 440 Cf. Case of Ticona Estrada v. Bolivia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 191, para. 110, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 158. 65