means money, so right now we have no care at all. What a help it would be if what is ours were recognized and paid to us, money that belongs to us by decree-law.430 183. Moreover, as the representatives reported, by June 2021, 185 alleged victims had passed away without ever gaining access to the money owed to them under final judicial mandate (supra para. 125). 184. The Court therefore finds that a reinforced standard could be demanded for the expeditious, effective execution of the verdict (supra paras. 148 to 152). This standard of reinforced promptness was not adopted by the State in the processes that comprise this case and that have taken more than a quarter-century to bring about compliance with the convictions against the municipalities, and this constitutes a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. B.4. Duty to adopt domestic legal effects with respect to the right to a reasonable period and the right to judicial protection 185. The Court notes that Article 2 of the Convention requires the States Parties to adopt, in accordance with their constitutional processes and the provisions of the Convention, such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights and freedoms protected by the Convention. This duty entails adopting measures of two kinds. The first is elimination of any norms and practices that in any way violate the guarantees provided under the Convention,431 either because they ignore those rights or liberties or because they obstruct their exercise.432 The second is to issue norms and develop practices that lead to the effective observance of such guarantees.433 186. The Court also emphasizes that in the instant case, the violations of the right to judicial protection and the right to a reasonable period were the result of an unclear, ineffective domestic regulatory framework created by the Labor Code, the MCOL and the Civil Procedural Code (supra paras. 153 to 170). The violations were also caused by the absence of provisions requiring the municipalities to comply with court-ordered sentences and requiring the State to provide the municipalities with funds to pay their debts. As expert witness Jordán Díaz said in the public hearing, the problem with the regulations on compliance with judgments against the municipalities is that they leave compliance up to discretion or willingness to pay, and to the possibility of obtaining funds. Thus, in view of the fact that the Chilean legal system does not include provisions requiring the State-municipality to comply with judicial verdicts, the expert witness concluded that, if citizens do not find that the public administration is willing to pay, they “stand defenseless.”434 Furthermore, the Chilean legal system offers no provisions for taking into account the particular vulnerability of older adults so as to ensure an expeditious process. 430 Statement rendered by Ceferina Olivia Matus Rodríguez at a public hearing before the Inter-American Court, May 31, 2021. 431 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103. 432 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al. v. Trinidad and Tobago, supra, para. 113, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103. 433 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 207, and Case of González et al. v. Venezuela, supra, para. 103. 434 Statement by expert witness Tomás Jordán Díaz delivered on May 31, 2021 at the public hearing before the Inter-American Court. 63