39 that arose in the compliance process stemming from the privatization, violated Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to effective judicial protection and prevented the realization of his right to a pension. 146. In relation to the partial payments disbursed to Mr. Muelle Flores, the Court observes that these were made by the private company (supra para. 80) and not by the State of Peru. Furthermore, the Court notes that the payments were made without taking into account the equalization of Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, in accordance with the regulations in force at the time. Nevertheless, the Court will take into consideration the amounts paid when it orders the measures of reparation in this case (infra para. 254). 147. In addition to the foregoing, the Court considers it important to emphasize the point made by the expert witness Christian Courtis, as follows: “Effective compliance with judicial rulings acquires even greater importance when the type of benefit is of an alimentary and income-substituting nature, since the right to a life with dignity or a decent standard of living depends on it, along with the rights that are interdependent […]. In addition to this, there is a special need to protect older persons and persons with disabilities, whose possibilities of obtaining an alternative source of income in the labor market are drastically reduced.”161 148. Accordingly, the Court considers that, in the instant case, the State should have acted with special diligence and promptness to ensure compliance with the domestic judgments, as well as the implementation of the pension payments. This, in consideration of the nature of the benefit at stake and “the need for promptness, procedural simplification and effectiveness”162 in cases where the claim before the courts concerns social security, especially that of an older person. In the instant case, the State did not take into account the content of the claim; on the contrary it has failed to execute the judgments delivered 25 and 19 years ago. A.3 Conclusion 149. Based on the foregoing, this Court concludes that the State is responsible for failing to comply with the judgments issued in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, by creating obstacles stemming from the privatization process; for the inefficacy of the Judiciary in ensuring such compliance and reversing the negative effects of privatization; and for its failure to implement measures to remedy that situation for a prolonged period of time. Consequently, the State violated the right to effective judicial protection recognized in Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, and of Article 2 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores. B. Reasonable time B.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 150. The Commission argued that the issue of reasonable time could also be applied to the execution of a final judicial decision. Regarding the complexity of the case, the Commission stressed that the matter was not complex given that a final judicial decision had already been handed down that was to be executed. In relation to the involvement of the interested party, it held that Mr. Muelle Flores had actively followed up on the case and promoted the execution of the judgment, complaining Cf. Affidavit rendered by Christian Courtis on August 30, 2018 (evidence file, folio 1829). Cf. Affidavit rendered by Christian Courtis on August 30, 2018 (evidence file, folio 1833). As this expert witness emphasized, Article 31 of the Inter-American Convention on Protecting the Human Rights of Older Persons, concerning the right of access to justice, establishes that: "State Parties shall ensure due diligence and preferential treatment for older persons in processing, settlement of, and enforcement of decisions in administrative and legal proceedings." 161 162