in that report on multiple occasions; for example, the resolution of the Sixth Civil Court of July 1, 2016, that of the Standing Civil Chamber and that of the Sixth Civil Court of May 23, 2017, which confirmed the resolution that approved the Expert Report and ordered compliance “with what had been ordered.” 109 98. The Court reiterates that, as an obligation established in Article 25 of the Convention, the public authorities cannot limit the meaning and the scope of judicial decisions nor unduly delay their execution. 110 In this case, notwithstanding the existence of a judicial debate on determining the specific amounts to be paid to the alleged victims, which had an influence on its immediate enforcement, the Court notes the existence of a series of activities by State authorities that delayed the execution and that, necessarily, had an impact on the failure to pay the additional amounts to the victims. The Court recalls that judicial remedies are not effective when, due to the particular circumstances of a case, they are illusory because the State did not provide the necessary means to execute final judgments or when there were unjustified delays in the decisions. 111 These actions, having directly impacted on the execution of the decision of February 12, also have had an impact on the guarantee of a reasonable time since, to date, more than 29 years have elapsed since the decision of February 12 and the victims in this case -especially, the sub-group of workers who continued their claim in the courts- have not received the payments that were determined in the Expert Report and that were already approved and confirmed judicially. Moreover, the delay in the payment of these amounts has resulted in some of the workers, more than 800, according to the representative Meneses Huayra in her brief with final written arguments, have died without having satisfactorily been granted their legitimate right to receive the amounts owed. 112 All of this implies a violation of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the victims who are listed in Annex II of this judgment. b.3 Alleged violation regarding the adoption of provisions of domestic law 99. The Court has pointed out that Article 2 of the Convention contemplates the general duty of the States Parties to adapt their domestic law to the provisions of the Convention in order to guarantee the rights set forth therein. This duty implies the adoption of measures in both: (i) the suppression of norms and practices of any nature that cause a violation of the guarantees set forth in the Convention and (ii) the enactment of norms and the development of practices that lead to the effective observance of those guarantees. 113 With specific regard to the adoption of those measures, the Court has recognized that each authority of a State Party to the Convention has the obligation to exercise a control of conventionality, 114 so that the interpretation and application of the domestic law is consistent with the international obligations of the State in the area of human rights. 115 100. The Court notes the relative similarity between this case and others that it has already decided, such as “Five Pensioners” v. Peru, Acevedo Buendía et al. (Discharged and Retired Workers Cf. Sixth Civil Court, Resolution of May 23, 2017 (evidence file, f. 4325). Cf. Case of Mejía Idovro v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 106 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 170. 111 Cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 137 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 170. 112 Cf. Brief with final written arguments of the representative Meneses Huayra (evidence file, f. 1513). 113 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207 and Case of Teachers of Chañaral and other municipalities v. Chile, supra, para. 185. 114 Cf. Case of Almonacid Arellano et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 26, 2006. Serie C No. 154, para 124 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 1, 2021. Series C No. 439, para 138. 115 Cf. Case of Radilla Pacheco v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 23, 2009. Series C No. 209, para. 340 and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 138. 109 110 26