133. With regard to the second aspect of the argument, that the State was ordered to pay the award in pesos, the IACHR notes that it is linked to the State’s argument regarding Article 21 of the American Convention, and the reservation it formulated thereto at the time of ratification of said instrument.192 The IACHR further recalls that the right to property is not part of the litis under examination in the instant case. With regard to this point, it must be clarified that the IACHR shall not analyze the means of payment as such; in other words, the decision to execute the sentence in the form of bonds. The Commission will analyze, however, whether the State -taking into account relevant circumstances with respect to the period of time necessary to cash them in its entirety in the instant case- was in compliance with the obligations enshrined in Article 25.2.c of the American Convention regarding enforcement of judgments. 134. And lastly, regarding the third component of the second argument, that is, the alleged difference between the amount of compensation awarded for damages and the amount received by the petitioner, the Commission notes that after weighing the injury inflicted on Sebastian as a result of unlawful acts of the State, the court determined within the scope of its jurisdiction that 130,000 pesos was the proper amount owed to him as reparation for damages, pain and suffering, plus interests and minus the appropriate percentage for legal fees and court costs. The petitioner received 34,126.09 pesos, from which a significant amount had to be subtracted to cover the 30% of the court costs and legal fees. 135. Regarding this point, the State asserts it was the decision of the petitioner himself to cash in the bonds prior to their maturity date (January 2016), fully aware that it would mean redeeming them below their nominal value. The IACHR also finds it important to stress that based on the established facts regarding the precarious economic situation of the petitioner, the urgency to provide care, assistance and treatment to his son, and the need to defray court costs and legal fees, it was not an option for him to wait until January 2016 to redeem the bonds at their nominal value. 136. In the same vein, the Commission recalls that the State has the obligation to ensure effective enforcement of court judgments, which in the instant case meant that if the petitioner wanted to avail himself of the full amount of reparation awarded by the court, he would have had to wait another 13 years until January 2016, in addition to the 12 years duration of the proceedings and execution of the judgment, that is, a total of 25 years, in order to be able to receive the full amount of court-ordered reparation. Based on the foregoing, and taking into account Sebastian’s situation, as well as other circumstances in the case, the IACHR cannot deem the execution of judgment to be effective, given that it was significantly reduced below the original amount awarded for reparation. 137. In conclusion, the IACHR finds that the Argentine State violated the right established in Article 25.2.c of the American Convention, in conjunction with the general obligation set forth in Article 1.1, by not ensuring the timely, suitable and effective enforcement of the judgment and thus failing to effectively guarantee the right to reparation for Sebastian Furlan, to which he was entitled according to the judgment rendered in the domestic courts. IACHR, Report 17/06, Petition 531-01, Admissibility, Sebastian Claus Furlan and Family, Argentina, March 2, 2006, para. 48. 192 The reservation reads: “Article 21 is subject to the following reservation: “The Argentine Government establishes that questions relating to the Government’s economic policy shall not be subject to review by an international tribunal. Neither shall it be considered reviewable anything the national courts may determine to be a matter of ‘public utility’ and ‘social interest’, nor anything they may understand to be ‘fair compensation’.” Regarding the interpretation and scope of said reservation, see IACHR, Report 40/06, Pedro Velázquez Ibarra, Argentina, March 15, 2006, paragraphs 43 to 47.