pursuant to article 4 of the Conciliation and Arbitration Act. Therefore, in the words of the State itself, this agreement was equivalent to a final judgment, and should have been complied with. The Court considers that the 2001 agreements constituted decisions that found the available ad hoc remedy to be appropriate. Those decisions signified commitments that entailed the implementation of specific actions by the parties, and especially by the State, Consequently, the State had the obligation to ensure their fulfillment and execution, pursuant to Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, which stipulates that “[t]he States Parties undertake […]: (c) to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 244. The Court considers that the guarantee of enforcement is applicable to compliance with any decision that finds the available remedy to be appropriate, 262 such as the decision in the instant case, pursuant to the previous considerations. The procedure should be intended to implement the protection of the right recognized in the ruling by applying this appropriately. 263 Therefore, pursuant to Article 25(2)(c), the effectiveness of a judicial or any other decision will depend on their execution, 264 which should be considered an integral part of the right of access to justice; 265 the contrary would suppose the denial of the right involved. 266 In addition, the Court has indicated that to achieve the full effectiveness of the judgment, its implementation must be complete, perfect, comprehensive, and prompt. 267 245. Therefore, the State is responsible for ensuring the means to execute the decisions issued by the competent authorities so that the rights declared or recognized are truly protected 268 in order to grant certainty about the right or dispute examined in the specific case. 269 246. Indeed, despite the State’s obligation to comply with the agreements reached in the 2001 undertaking and that it had accorded such agreements the equivalence of a final judgment, the Court notes that the State failed to execute the actions it had undertaken to implement, which were reiterated in the 2006 memorandum of understanding (supra para. 119) because, even though it had conducted two appraisals (in 2001 and 2007) in order to pay the improvements made by the inhabitants of Rio Miel, it failed to look for an alternative piece of land to relocate them and to achieve the adoption of the budget item to pay for the improvements owing to the refusal by the corresponding entities, such as the National Congress and the Finance Ministry (supra paras. 118 and 123). In its case law on Article 25, the Court has referred to the application of the right to judicial protection within the framework of procedures other than judicial proceedings. In this regard, the Court has interpreted that “the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse” and Article 25 as a whole, must be understood in its broadest sense. Cf. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 65 and 98, Case of the Xámok Kásek Indigenous Community, supra, paras. 144 to 145 and 154. 263 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, paras. 73, 74 and 82, and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 198. 264 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Baena Ricardo et al., Jurisdiction, supra, para. 82 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 198. 265 Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Case of Baena Ricardo et al., Jurisdiction, supra, para. 82 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 198. 266 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., Jurisdiction, supra, para. 82 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 196. 267 Cf. Case of Mejia Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C N. 228, para. 105, and Case of Furlan and family v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C N. 246, para. 210. 268 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al), supra, para. 237 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 196. 269 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra, para. 167 and Case of Wong Ho Wing, supra, para. 196. 262 70