by the party, which was not demonstrated in at least eight of the thirteen cases. It therefore believed that it was inappropriate to hold the State responsible for the applicants’ lack of activity or procedural measures. 134. With respect to the alleged violation of Article 2 of the Convention for failing to have regulatory measures that would guarantee access to justice, the State argued that labor judgments in Chile are currently settled through a subsequent, differentiated procedure and argued before a specialized tribunal called the Court for Labor and Pension Collections, created on May 30, 2005, under Law No. 20,022. Likewise, regarding the argument that the primary obstacle to enforcement of the judgments was that municipal assets were not eligible for attachment, the State pointed out that the the country had no rules or regulations that could absolutely shield municipal assets from being seized, and that in fact, several of the cases at hand360 had succeeded in attaching assets that were not designated for the functions inherent to the work of the municipalities. 135. Finally, the State argued that, because it could not be held responsible for the failure to execute the judgments on which the case was based, it therefore could not be found to have violated the right to property of the alleged victims; in fact, this right had been upheld by the courts, but the judgments had not been carried out for lack of initiative by the parties. It accordingly asked that the State be found not to have violated Article 21 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations provided in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. B. Considerations of the Court 136. This dispute concerns the State’s alleged failure to enforce final, non-appealable judgments in favor of teachers in the framework of the thirteen proceedings that comprise the case, and the Court therefore finds it necessary to begin by determining who the beneficiaries of these final verdicts are (1). Next, and for the purpose of elucidating the arguments brought by the parties and the Commission, the Court will discuss the alleged violations of the right to judicial protection by examining, first, the obligation of the party in the process to push for execution of judgment, and second, the regulatory and material barriers for demanding debt payment from the municipalities (2). It will then evaluate whether the lapse of over twenty-five years that have passed since the processes of execution of judgment began, without achieving full payment of the debts, is reasonable (3). It will proceed next to analyze the State’s duties to adapt domestic legal provisions that will ensure the right to judicial guarantees and the right to a reasonable time period (4). Finally, it will judge on the alleged violation of the right to property for the teachers who were beneficiaries of the still unrealized judgments (5). B.1. The teachers who received a favorable judgment 137. The Court will first address the matter of which individuals can be correctly held as alleged victims of the violations claimed by the representatives and the Commission, given the failure to enforce judgments delivered against the municipalities in the thirteen proceedings subsumed in the instant case. The Court recalls the Commission’s assertion in the Merits Report that 848 teachers are alleged victims, as identified in the list attached to the report. 360 Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993 and Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993. The State also argued that several vehicles had been attached in the judgments against the municipality of Parral. 48