28 to the proceedings.67 77. Apart from the obligation to provide a prompt, simple and effective recourse to the alleged victims in order to guarantee their rights, which did not happen, the Convention also contemplates the right to judicial protection according to which the State must guarantee compliance with the decisions rendered by the Constitutional Court in such respect. In this sense, the Tribunal notes that, in total, more than eleven and eight years have elapsed since the first and last judgment of the Constitutional Court were rendered, respectively,- and almost 15 years since the judgment of the First Specialized Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima- and such rulings have not been effectively complied with. The inefficacy of said remedies has made the right to judicial protection of the alleged victims to be, at least partially, illusory, considering the denial itself of the right in question. 78. It is worth mentioning that the Constitutional Court, by means of judgment of January 26, 2001, mentioned that, in the domestic proceeding “subparagraphs (1) and (2)(c) of Article 25 of the American Convention [on] Human Rights […] have been […] violated […].”68 79. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the State violated the right to judicial protection enshrined in Article 25(1) and 25(2) (c) of the American Convention, in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the two-hundred and seventy-three people mentioned in paragraph 113 of this Judgment. C) The right to property in relation to the violation of the right to judicial protection 80. The Tribunal still needs to determine whether the partial compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional Court led to the violation of the right to property that the alleged victims allegedly have over the patrimonial effects of the right to an adjustable pension that they acquired, according to the Peruvian legislation. 81. In such regard, the Commission alleged “that once the [alleged] victims terminated their employment in [CGR] and opted for the pension system established in Decree Law No. 20.530, they acquired, n accordance with the caselaw of the Inter-American Court, […] ‘a right to property over the patrimonial effects of the right to a pension under [such] Decree Law […] and the terms of Article 21 of the American Convention”. “Consequently, the Commission consider[ed] that the payment of the pensions owed from April 1993 to October 2002 is an asset that has been incorporated into the patrimony of the victims". Hence, for the Commission, “the failure to comply [with] the judgments handed down, [has] deprived the members of the Association [...] from legally recognized rights, violating their right to property”. 82. Likewise, the representatives alleged that, “the failure to pay, from April 1993 to October 2002, the adjustable pension […], constitutes a violation of the content of the right to private property embodied in Article 21 of the Convention”. It also stated that, “any type of pension, provided that it had entered the patrimony of an individual in full satisfaction of the domestic legal 67 Cf. Case of Salvador Chiriboga V. Ecuador. Preliminary Objection and Merits. Judgment of May 6, 2008. Series C No. 179, para. 83. 68 1721). Judgment of October 26, 2001 of the Constitutional Court of Perú, supra note 32 (page