pronounced extensively on the question of what constitutes a reasonable period of time in criminal proceedings, this provision may also apply to execution of a final court judgment. 72. It has been reiterated in the jurisprudence of the European Court, when it has stated that unwarranted delay in executing a court judgment may constitute a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable period of time.101 The European Court stressed that in no case may a delay in executing a court judgment "impair the essence of the right upheld by the right [to due process]."102 73. Pursuant to Article 8.1 of the American Convention, the Commission will take into consideration, in light of the specific circumstances of the instant case, four elements to analyze a reasonable period of time: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding. 103 74. As regards complexity, the IACHR notes that there was no complexity given that a final judicial decision had been handed down that was to be executed. In addition, the Peruvian State never argued that executing it was complex. As for the interested party's involvement, the Commission observes that Mr. Muelle kept track of progress with execution of the judgment and complained on numerous occasions of the delays with regard to its enforcement. For its part, the company filed various appeals questioning Mr. Muelle's reincorporation in the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme and arguing that since it had been privatized it was not responsible for complying with the Supreme Court judgment: a matter that was not duly resolved by internal judicial authorities. With respect to the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Commission reiterates what it stated in the foregoing section regarding the way in which judicial resolutions issued during the judgment execution phase were ineffective in bringing about compliance with the judgment. Also worth stressing here are the lengthy periods in which nothing happened in the aforementioned execution of judgment stage and the unwarranted delays by the State in resolving several appeals filed by both parties. 75. Regarding the fourth element, the Court has said that, in determining what constitutes a reasonable period of time, consideration should be given to the adverse effect of the duration of the proceedings on the judicial situation of the person involved as well as to the interests at stake.104 The Commission notes that Mr. Muelle is now an older adult of 80 years of age and that, 26 years after his retirement in 1990, he has still not been able to enjoy his pension on the terms to which he was entitled according to the Supreme Court. The State has not disputed the fact that the victim is in a precarious situation, both financially and in respect of his health. Accordingly, the Commission considers that this factor is relevant to the instant case and constitutes an additional consideration with respect to determining "reasonable" deadlines. 76. In short, the Commission considers that the lapse of almost 27 years without execution of the Supreme Court judgment of February 1993 exceeds any period of time that could be deemed reasonable. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is also responsible for violating the right to a reasonable time [for a hearing] established in Article 8.1 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. 101 ECHR, Hornsby v. Greece. Judgment of March 19, 1997, par. 40. 102 ECHR, Di Pede v. Italy. Judgment of September 26, 1996, par. 16. I/A Court HR. .Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par. 164. 103 104 I/A Court HR. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, par. 138; Case of Valle Jaramillo et al. v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 27, 2008. Series C No. 192, par. 155; and Case of Kawas Fernández v. Honduras. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of April 3, 2009, Series C No. 196, par. 115. 15