31 118. The State pointed out that, “although no specific coercive measures were adopted in this case” to ensure compliance with the ruling during the execution process “the judicial body did require the company to comply with the judicial ruling.” Likewise, the State indicated that there were regulations in effect governing coercive measures for jurisdictional organs, and emphasized that the execution of judgments and judicial rulings formed part of the fundamental right to effective judicial protection, enshrined in the Peruvian Constitution. To this end, the State indicated that the Organic Law of the Judiciary, the Code of Constitutional Procedure and the Code of Civil Procedure, established the obligation of “every individual and authority” to abide by and comply with judicial decisions, “under civil, criminal or administrative responsibility,” without delay in their execution. It also emphasized that Administrative Resolution N° 149-2012-P-PJ of April 10, 2012, an Official Circular of March 2005 and Administrative Resolution N° 128-2008-CE-PJ of May 9, 2008, issued by the Executive Council of the Judiciary, ordered that “all the country’s jurisdictional organs adopt appropriate measures to execute, within a reasonable time, the monetary judgments issued against State entities.” 119. The State argued that the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court had ruled that the company was not obliged to pay Mr. Muelle Flores’ pensions, and had therefore decided that the lower court should rule again on this matter. In this regard, the State considered that since 2002, “the payment of pensions originating from a privatized entity [has been] the responsibility of the [MEF]”, and given that the private company was not obligated to pay [the pension], the coercive measures and demands for payment should have been directed to the MEF. Instead, during the domestic proceedings, Mr. Muelle Flores, despite being aware of this situation, always maintained his position of acting against the private company, omitting to request that a summons be issued to the MEF, which was not summoned at any time. The State further argued that, under the amparo laws in effect at the time, “the process of enforcing judicial decisions was carried out at the request of the party,” who “claimed interest and legitimacy to act;” therefore, Mr. Muelle Flores, being the right holder, should have requested the formal summons of the MEF but did not do so, which “has not helped to clarify the legal problem, [but on the contrary] has, in some way, led to confusion in the judicial authority.” However, the State stressed that it was not trying to “elude [its] obligations regarding Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores’ pension” and expressed its willingness to comply with the Court’s order. It indicated that its legal counsel would try to explain the complexities of the case to the Court, which in some way have affected the alleged failure to execute the judgment, given that, as a result of the judicial debate that is still under way, it has not been determined who should execute the decision in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores. 120. The State further argued that the private company had made partial payments to Mr. Muelle after the Supreme Court ruling of February 2, 1993. Those amounts corresponded to the pension payments that he should have received since 1991, that is, he received the payments corresponding to the period from 1991 to 2001; thus, it could not be categorically stated that the remedy was ineffective. 121. As to the measures adopted by virtue of the privatization process, the State affirmed that contrary to what was alleged by the Court, it did indeed adopt measures to protect the pension rights of former employees of privatized companies enrolled in the pension scheme of Decree Law No. 20530. In that regard, it indicated that from 2002, by means of different regulations (Laws No.27719, No.28115 and No.28449), it was determined that, in the case of privatized State companies, the entity that should take responsibility for paying the pensions of persons affiliated to the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme was the Ministry of Economy and Finance. Therefore, the State considered that “based on those laws it was clear which entity was to take over the pension payments.” The State acknowledged that although those safeguards “[were] not applied in this specific case, this constitutes a measure of reparation to prevent the repetition of similar situations in the future.”