rights. 76 For its part, the IACHR has maintained that "if the judicial branch is to serve effectively as an organ for the control, guarantee, and protection of human rights, it must not only be constituted formally, but it also has to be independent and impartial, and its rulings must be carried out."77 52. In that sense, the effectiveness of judgments depends on their execution.78 If judgment is not enforced, the right involved is denied.79 The IACHR has maintained that judicial decisions must be complied with, be it voluntarily or, if necessary, coercively.80 Likewise, the Court has underscored that execution of judgments must be governed by those specific standards that allow for effective application of the principles of, inter alia, judicial protection, due process, legal certainty, judicial independence, and the rule of law.81 Accordingly, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the parties have access to enforcement procedures , without hindrance or unwarranted delays, in order for them to achieve their objective in a swift, straightforward, and comprehensive manner.82 53. For its part, the European Court of Human Rights has maintained that for a judgment to be fully effective, its execution must be complete, perfect, comprehensive,83 and prompt.84 For that reason, the provisions governing the independence of the judiciary must be appropriately formulated in order to ensure prompt enforcement of judgments without interference from other branches of government and they must guarantee the binding and mandatory nature of final instance decisions.85 54. The Inter-American Court has maintained that in a political system based on the principle of the rule of law, all public authorities, within their spheres of competence, must heed judicial decisions, and support and enforce them without thwarting the meaning or scope of the decision or unduly delaying its execution.86 Accordingly, the IACHR has stressed that "ensuring the execution of judicial judgments thus constitutes a fundamental aspect that is the very essence of the rule of law."87 2. Information regarding the issue of failure to comply with internal judgments in Peru 76 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 104. 77 IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 52. 78 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 104. 79 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Jaramillo v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006, par. 220. 80 IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 53. 81 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Tuesday, July 05, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 105. 82 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of Tuesday, July 05, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 106. 83 ECHR, Case of Matheus v. France, No. 62740/01, Judgment of March 31, 2005, par. 58; and ECHR, Case of Sabin Popescu v. Romania, n° 48102/99, Judgment of March 2, paragraphs 68ff. 84 ECHR, Case of Cocchiarella v. Italy. Judgment of March 29, 2006, par. 89. 85 ECHR, Matheus v. France. Judgment of June 31, 2005 [Tr. sic.: March 31, 2005?], par. 58. 86 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 106. 87 IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 54. 11