b) Effective judicial protection in the implementation of the domestic rulings (Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention) 103. Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention states that the States undertake to “ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.”80 104. As such, the Court has noted that “under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. The first one is that the States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations. The second one is that States must guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments delivered by such competent authorities81 so that the declared or recognized rights are protected effectively. The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.” 82 This, since a judgment, which has enforceable authority, gives rise to certainty as to the right or dispute under discussion in the particular case, and therefore its binding force is one of the effects thereof. The contrary would imply the denial of this right.” 83 105. The Court considers that the implementation of judgments should be governed by those specific standards that enable the realization of the principles of, inter alia, judicial protection, due process, legal certainty, judicial independence, and rule of law. The Court agrees with the European Court of Human Rights upon considering that to achieve full effectiveness of the judgment, its implementation should be complete, perfect, comprehensive, 84 and without delay. 85 80 Moreover, the Court declared violations of Article 25 because of the lack of due diligence and tolerance by the tribunals when processing [... remedies], and the lack of effective judicial protection, which have allowed the abusive use [...] as a delaying tactic in the process. Case of the Dos Erres Massacre V. Guatemala, supra note 78, para. 120. 81 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero V. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. V. México. Preliminar Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2010. Series C No. 216, para. 166, and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores V. México, supra note 5, para. 142. 82 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competence, supra note 76, para. 73; Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Cesantes and Jubilados of la Contraloría”) V. Perú, supra note 76, para. 66, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. V. Perú, supra note 19, para. 75. 83 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panamá. Competencia, supra note 76, para. 82; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo V. Perú, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006, para. 220, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) V. Perú, supra note 76, para. 72. 84 Cf. CtEDH, Case of Matheus versus Francia, n° 62740/00, Judgment of 31.03.2005, para. 58; CtEDH, Case of Popescu versus Romania, n° 48102/99, Judgment of 2.03.2004, para. 68 and ss. According to standards developed by the Consultative Committee of European Judges (CCJE), an advisory body of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in matters relating to the independence, impartiality and professionalism of judges, "the execution of decisions of justice should be fair, prompt, effective and proportionate "” (Cf. Opinion no.13 (2010) on the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, available in english, french, and polish, athttps://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorI nternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864, last visit July 1, 2011. 32