32 122. Finally, the State argued that it did not violate Article 2 of the American Convention, given that it had precise and specific laws regarding coercive measures to execute judicial decisions in relation to pension safeguards for its former workers in the event of privatization. A.2 Considerations of the Court 123. Regarding the right to judicial protection, 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 obligation to embody in their legislation and ensure the 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.137 The second one requires the States to guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments delivered by the competent authorities, so that the rights declared or recognized are effectively protected.138 This is because a judgment that is res judicata grants certainty as to the right or dispute under discussion in the particular case and, therefore, its binding force is one of the effects thereof.139 The contrary would imply the denial of this right.140 124. In this regard, Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention requires States to “ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.” 125. The Court has indicated that the State’s responsibility does not end when the competent authorities issue a decision or judgment, but that it also requires the State to guarantee effective means and mechanisms to execute final decisions, so that the rights declared are effectively protected.141 Likewise, this Court has established that the full effectiveness of judgments depends on their execution. The process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling.142 126. 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 the rule of law. The Court has also indicated that in order to achieve the full effectiveness of a judgment, its implementation should be complete, perfect, and comprehensive and without delay.143 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 234. 138 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79, and Case of Favela Nova Brasilia v. Brazil, supra, para. 234. 139 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 167, and Case of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 8, 2015. Series C No.304, para.248. 140 Cf. Case of Cantos v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, para. 54, and Case of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, supra, para. 244. 141 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 220, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala, supra, para. 169. 137 142 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction, supra, para. 73, and Case of Colindres Schonenberg v. El Salvador, supra, para.101. 143 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 105, and Case of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, supra, para. 244.