obligations. The second one is that States must guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments delivered by such competent authorities so that the declared or recognized rights are protected effectively. The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.” Therefore, “the effectiveness of judgments depends on their enforcement. This is because a judgment that has become res judicata confers certainty on the right or dispute at issue in the concrete case, and, therefore, has as one of its effects the obligatory nature or necessity of enforcement. The contrary would be tantamount to denying the right involved. To achieve the full effectiveness of the judgment, enforcement should be complete, perfect, comprehensive, and prompt.”63 66. In the instant case, the Commission observes that after the decision not to ratify, the alleged victim pursued the remedies of review (revisión), amparo, appeal (apelación), and annulment (nulidad). Nonetheless, all were rejected without any substantive analysis of the due process violations that the alleged victim argued occurred as a result of her non-ratification, especially of the right to defense. 67. In particular, the IACHR emphasizes that in response to the dismissal of the first writ of amparo, the alleged victim filed a motion of appeal (recurso de apelación) and subsequently a motion for nullity (recurso de nulidad) against the dismissal of the motion for appeal, arguing that the decisions on amparo and on appeal were made without taking into account the record of ratifications, which would make it possible to determine whether due process violations were committed in the context of the proceeding that culminated in her nonratification. On August 4, 1986 the Supreme Court of Justice found null the judgments on amparo and appeal, and ordered the judge in the case to issue a new ruling, taking into account the record of ratifications. 68. The Commission observes that said decision was not handed down during more than 10 years, despite the constant requests by the alleged victim, and that it was not until December 30, 1996, that the 16th Civil Court of Lima issued a new judgment dismissing the amparo action. After that, the motions for appeal and nullity filed against this second amparo decision were denied. The IACHR considers it is not necessary to analyze the elements of reasonable time with respect to the second amparo decision, and considers that more than 10 years for issuing a decision on a motion for amparo ordered by a competent judicial organ is clearly unreasonable, and also constitutes a violation of the right to the effective enforcement of judicial decisions without delay. 69. In view of the foregoing, the IACHR finds that the Peruvian is responsible for violating Articles 8(1), 25(1), and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established at Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of Norka Moya Solís. E. Political rights 70. Article 23(1)(c) establishes that all citizens should enjoy the following rights and opportunities: to have access, under general conditions of equality, to the public service of his or her country. 71. The Inter-American Court has found that when the permanence of judges in their positions is affected arbitrarily, that right is violated, in conjunction with the right to judicial independence, enshrined in Article 8(1) of the American Convention. 64 In addition, the IACHR has extended the application of that right to situations in which the labor stability of prosecutors is affected. 65 Following those criteria and the literal meaning of Article 23(1)(c) the IACHR considers that when the permanence of public servants in their positions is affected arbitrarily, that right is violated. 72. As established in earlier sections, in the instant case it has been established that the alleged victim was separated from her position in an arbitrary process marked by several violations of both the right to due process and the principle of legality, in the terms described throughout this report on the merits; accordingly, I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, paras. 104 and 105. 64 I/A Court HR. Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, para. 192. 65 IACHR, Report No. 159/18. Case 12,993. Merits. Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy et al. Peru. December 7, 2018, para. 101. 63