of the Office of the Comptroller) v. Peru and Muelle Flores v. Peru. In those cases, the Court verified the failure to comply with judgments in favor of persons whose rights to a pension had been recognized by a judicial decision and had not been executed in the terms of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention. 116 The Commission and the representatives alleged the existence of a structural problem in Peru regarding compliance of judicial decisions analogous to this case, which constituted a failure to comply with the State’s obligations set forth in Article 2 of the Convention. 101. The Court underscores that the main object of the controversy in this case was the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection due to the delayed or the partial execution of the Supreme Court’s decision of February 12, as well as the possible infringement of other rights. The Court also recalls that the factual framework of the case is found in the Merits Report and considers that the claims made by the Commission on the “failure of the Peruvian State to comply with judgments against the State bodies since the 1990s goes beyond the individual situation of the alleged victims in the instant case and is part of a more general context” are relevant facts in “situating the acts that were alleged to violate [human rights] within the framework of the specific circumstances in which they occurred,” 117 but are not an autonomous violation of the rights recognized in the Convention. 102. The Court notes that neither the Commission nor the representatives offered specific arguments on how the domestic juridical framework impeded the execution of domestic decisions of the alleged victims in this case or in other cases. Nor does the record show that such a violation occurred. The Court, therefore, considers that there are not sufficient elements to determine whether these norms violated Article 2 of the Convention. Nevertheless, the Court notes that, in this specific case, there is an obvious attitude on the part of the State to delay compliance with the decision of 1992. The Court also notes that, in 2007, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson urged that the MEF proceed with the payments of the amounts, pointing out the State’s non-compliance as a habitual practice of failing to execute decisions against state institutions that contain judicial mandates with patrimonial obligations (supra para. 55). Particularly illustrative is the statement of Sergio Valdivia -victim and also Secretary General of FEMAPOR- who, in the public hearing before the Court, requested that the State be ordered to pay the amounts owed “so that the victims do not continue to die without obtaining justice.” 118 Thus, although it has not been possible to determine a violation of the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law set forth in Article 2 of the Convention, the Court notes, with concern, that the passage of time in the present case has had an impact of special gravity on the victims, because, as pointed out by the representatives, more than 800 of the victims have died, a matter that is not surprising when account is taken that a great majority of them are between 80 and 90 years old and the life expectancy from birth in Peru is 77 years. 119 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Workers of the Office of the Comptroller v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, para. 77 and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 149. 117 Cf. Case of J. v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2013. Series C No. 275, para. 53 and Case of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2019. Series C No. 394, para. 202. 118 Cf. Statement of Sergio Valdivia in the public hearing held during the 142nd regular session. 119 Cf. World Bank, Life expectancy at birth. Available at: https://datos.bancomundial.org/indicador/sp.dyn.le00.in?locations=PE 116 27