187. The Court notes that, after the events of this case, the process of enforcing labor matters was reformed by approval of Law No. 20,022 of May 30, 2005. Labor judgments can now be executed by means of a subsequent, differentiated procedure before a specialized court called the Labor and Pension Fund Collections Court that is empowered to act on its own motion. However, none of the processes covered by this case used the procedure. 188. As discussed above, during the time the proceedings in this case were underway, the regulations in force constituted violation of the guarantees established in the Convention, and the State failed to issue or amend regulations that would bring about effective municipal compliance with the judgments. Considering that the beneficiaries are part of a vulnerable population and that the State holds the obligation of providing funds to the municipalities to pay these sentences, the State was guilty of breaching its duty to adopt domestic legal effects in keeping with Article 2 of the Convention, with respect to the reinforced guarantees of a reasonable term for execution of judgments involving a vulnerable population group, as well as the right to judicial protection, as established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention. B.5. Right to property 189. In its case law, this Court has developed a broad concept of property that encompasses the use and enjoyment of possessions, defined as those material items that may be appropriated, as well as any benefit that may form part of a person’s patrimony.435 Using Article 21 of the Convention, the Court has also protected vested rights, understood as rights that have been incorporated into the patrimony of the individual.436 It is worth repeating that the right to property is not absolute and, in this sense, it may be subject to restrictions and limitations, provided these are carried out using the appropriate legal mechanisms and in accordance with the parameters established in Article 21.437 190. As was said above, in this case, the municipalities were convicted and ordered to pay the alleged victims an allowance created under article 40 of decree-law 3,551, starting on the dates the teachers were hired and for the duration of their contracts. These final, non-appealable judgments ordered payment of an amount to the teachers, quantified by means of assessments filed throughout the processes of enforcement. The Court therefore finds that these amounts, from the time they were ordered, became part of the teachers’ personal wealth and are therefore a vested right. It should also be recalled that the allowance had been extended to the alleged victims so they could support themselves and their families, improve their financial situation, and cover the medical and other expenses needed in their current circumstances. 191. For these reasons, this Court believes that the convictions handed down against the municipalities cover financial benefits recognized in favor of the alleged victims and protected by the right to property, as they were clearly quantified and therefore could be enforced by judicial means.438 The failure to pay because of the practical impossibility of enforcing the judgments 435 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru, supra, paras. 120 and 122, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, para. 192. 436 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Peru, supra, par. 122, and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru, supra, para. 192. 437 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 60 to 63; Case of Mémoli v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 22, 2013. Series C No. 265, para. 170; and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. supra, para. 192. 438 The European Court of Human Rights has also found that a debt can be protected by the right to property, so long as it is sufficiently established to be enforceable. Cfr. among others, ECtHR, Stran Greek Refineries and Stratis 64