26 regard, the European Court has declared that, 40. […] that right [right to a fair trial] would be illusory if a Contracting State's domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party [to the case]. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 para. 1 (art. 6-1) should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants - proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious - without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 (art. 6) as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. See, mutatis mutandis, the Golder v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A no. 18, pp. 16-18, para. 34-36). Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the "trial" for the purposes of Article 6.”56 72. In this sense, under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. The first one is that the States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations.57 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 rights are protected effectively.58 This, since a judgment which has enforceable authority gives rise to certainty as to the right or dispute under discussion in the particular case, and therefore its binding force is one of the effects thereof.59 The contrary would imply the denial of this right.60 73. Hence, this Court has declared that the State violated Article 25 of the Convention insofar as, in one case, the respondent State, for a long time, failed to comply with the judgments rendered by domestic courts61 and, in another case, it failed to ensure that an order of habeas corpus “be executed appropriately.”62 This, because the right to judicial protection would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system were to allow a final binding decision morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. […] 56 Cf. ECHR, Case of Hornsby v.Greece, Judgment of 19 March 1997, para. 40; Case of Popov v. Moldova, Judgment of 18 January 2005, no. 74153/01, para. 40; Case of Assanidze v. Georgia, Judgment of 8 April 2004, no. 71503/01, para. 182; Case of Jasiúniene v. Lithuania, Judgment of 6 March 2003, no. 41510/98, para. 27, and Case of Burdov v. Russia, Judgment of 7 May 2002, no. 59498/00, para. 34. 57 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits, Judgment of November 12, 1997, Series Nº. 35, para. 65; Case of Claude Reyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 130; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45, para. 216. 58 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 53, para. 82; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45, paras. 216 and 220. 59 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45 para. 167. 60 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al., supra note 53, para. 82; and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al., supra note 45, para. 220. 61 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners” V. Perú. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C Nº 98, para. 138 and 141. 62 Cf. Case of Cesti Hurtado V. Perú. Merits. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C. Nº 56, para. 133.