Considerations of the Court 209. The Court has indicated that, under the terms of Article 25 of the Convention, it is possible to identify two specific responsibilities of the State. The first is that States have the obligation to incorporate 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 is that States must provide effective mechanisms to ensure that the decisions or judgments delivered by such competent authorities are executed344, 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, through proper enforcement of this ruling345. Therefore, “the full effectiveness of judgments depends on their implementation,” 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.346 210. In this respect, the Court reiterates that the execution of judgments should be governed by those specific standards that allow for the application of the principles of, inter alia, judicial protection, due process, legal certainty, judicial independence and the rule of law. The Court concurs with the European Court of Human Rights that in order to achieve the full effectiveness of a judgment, its implementation should be complete, perfect, and comprehensive347 and without delay.348 211. Moreover, under Article 25.2.c) of the American Convention, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be accessible to the parties, without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, simply, and comprehensively satisfy 344 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65 and Case of Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 26, 2010. Series C No. 220, para. 142. 345 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Abrill Alosilla et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 4, 2011. Series C No. 223, para. 75. 346 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 104, Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Jurisdiction, para. 82, and Case of Acevedo Buendía et. al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller”) v. Peru, para. 72. 347 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 105, citing ECHR Case of Matheus v. France, (No. 62740/01), Judgment of March 31, 2005, para. 58. According to the principles proposed by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), a Consultative Body of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on matters concerning the independence, impartiality and professional capacity of judges, "enforcement of judicial decisions should be fair, swift, effective and proportionate” (Cf. Opinion no. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=D BDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864 348 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 105, citing ECHR, Case of Cocchiarella v. Italy (No. 64886/01), G.C., Judgment of March 29, 2006, para. 89, and Case of Gaglione et al. v. Italy, (No. 45867/07), Judgment of December 21, 2010, para. 34. In light of the ECHR’s established case law, a delay in the execution of judicial decisions may constitute a violation of the right to be heard within a reasonable time, as established by Article 6, para. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights since the “[e]xecution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the trial for the purposes of Article 6”. See also, ECHR, Case of Hornsby v. Greece, (No. 18357/91), Judgment of March 19, 1997, para. 40, and Case of Jasiūnienė v. Lithuania, (No. 41510/98), Judgment of March 6, 2003. Final, June 6, 2003, para. 27. 67