30 privatization, highlights the fact that this regulation did not satisfy the purposes for which it was created. 111. The Commission stressed that, nearly 24 years after the first judicial ruling was issued in Mr. Muelle’s favor, the State continues to violate his right to effective judicial protection, given that the execution process, by not fulfilling its essential purpose, turned out to be ineffective. It considered that although the State referred to some payments made in the 1990s and until 2000, these were partial; moreover, the State had not demonstrated that these payments complied with the equalization and calculation process ordered in the judgment favorable to Mr. Muelle Flores. 112. The Commission concluded that the State was responsible for failing to establish an adequate regulatory framework; for the State entity’s initial failure to comply with the judgment favorable to Mr. Muelle Flores; for the inefficacy of the Judiciary to ensure such compliance; for creating obstacles by means of a privatization process that did not provide minimal safeguards; and for the Judiciary’s subsequent inefficacy in settling the dispute regarding who was responsible for making the pension payments. Accordingly, it concluded that the Peruvian State was responsible for the violation of the rights recognized in Articles 25(1) and 25(2) (c) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. Finally, it pointed out that the State did not adopt the general measures necessary to remedy Mr. Muelle Flores’ situation, and therefore, it was also responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. 113. The representatives pointed out that Mr. Muelle’s pension payments were suspended through a unilateral, arbitrary and untimely decision taken by the State-owned company, without any prior administrative procedure, breaching the victim’s acquired rights and his right to due process. Accordingly, they concluded that the State violated Article 8(1) and 25(1) of the American Convention. The representatives also argued that the State had manifestly failed in its obligation to provide an effective judicial remedy, given that although the judgments in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores had the authority of res judicata, the State did not act or fulfill its obligation to employ all necessary means to ensure their implementation. 114. Furthermore, they argued that the State not only failed to comply with the domestic judgments, but also failed to provide a judicial remedy to ensure the execution of those decisions. 115. The representatives pointed out that, after the privatization of the company, it was not made clear who would be responsible for paying Mr. Muelle’s pension. This matter was not settled during the execution process, since both the privatized company and the OEP (hereinafter “State Pension Body”) excused themselves from the duty to implement the judgment, since in their view, neither one was responsible for paying the pension. 116. The representatives argued that the State’s non-compliance still continues today, given that the presumed victim has not received his equalized retirement pension since February of 1991, nor has he been granted the corresponding health coverage. They considered that the partial pension payments made from 1999 to 2001 did not correspond to the equalized amount that he should have received, pursuant to the judgments issued by the domestic courts, and that despite this, the ONP refused to calculate the payment due, even though it was required to do so, based on the legislation at that time. Accordingly, the representatives concluded that the State of Peru was responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 25(1) and 25(2) (c) of the American Convention in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. 117. The representatives also concluded that the Peruvian State was responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the Convention for failing to adopt, for a long period of time, the set of measures needed to ensure full compliance with the judgments of its judicial bodies.