42 State’s duty to act with particular promptness in the execution of domestic decisions (supra para. 129). 158. The Court confirms that the first application for amparo concluded with the judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on February 2, 1993, and the second amparo action concluded with the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court on December 10, 1999. However, these judgements have not been implemented since their adoption 26 and 19 years ago, respectively. In view of the foregoing, and based on the criteria established in its case law, the Court will now determine whether the time elapsed is reasonable. 159. To determine the complexity of a matter, this Court has considered several criteria such as the complexity of the evidence, the multiplicity of procedural subjects or the number of victims, the time elapsed since the violation, and the context in which the violation occurred.168 The Court notes that in the instant case there is only one victim, and that a final judicial decision already existed which should have been complied with or executed. The State’s argument that the complexity of the case was due to the uncertainty regarding the entity responsible for the pension payments has no merit, since the State itself created the uncertainty by not clearly establishing, prior to the privatization, how the victim’s legally recognized pension rights would be protected. Likewise, such complexity cannot be based on the inefficacy and passivity of the Judiciary itself to determine who would be responsible for paying the pension. Therefore, the Court finds that there are no elements of complexity in this case. 160. In relation to the procedural activity of the interested party, the Court notes that Mr. Oscar Muelle Flores actively promoted the proceedings throughout the execution process. He participated in a series of actions to reverse the suspension of his pension payments (including the contentiousadministrative complaint filed by the State company), submitted several briefs seeking the enforcement of the judgments, and sent requests for payment and notarized letters, both to the ONP, and the MEF and Proinversión, in support of the restoration of his right (supra paras. 75). Furthermore, on several occasions, the interested party questioned the delay in the process and asked that his case be expedited (supra para. 92). 161. Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the Court considers that to ensure the full effectiveness of the judgment, the judicial authorities must act promptly and without delay,169 because the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be carried out without hindrance or undue delay, in order to quickly, simply and comprehensively satisfy their purpose.170 In the instant case, the Court observes that despite the existence two final judicial rulings, the judicial authorities failed to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with those decisions, thereby highlighting their inefficacy in resolving the vicissitudes arising in the execution process. This is reflected in the delays in deciding on the legal claims filed by the victim and in the fact that on several occasions the judicial authorities had to order compliance with the judgments, and that despite this, even after a long period had elapsed, none of the judicial authorities involved in the process to execute the judgment activated any coercive mechanism to ensure the realization of Mr. Muelle Flores’ legally recognized right. Furthermore, although Mr. Muelle Flores had to travel abroad for health reasons, from the evidence it is clear that even during his absence from the country 168 Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua, supra, para. 78, and Case of Women Victims of Sexual Torture in Atenco v. Mexico, supra, para. 308. 169 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 105, and Case of the Garifuna Community of Punta Piedra and its Members v. Honduras, supra, para. 244. 170 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106, and Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, para. 250. Cf. Opinion No. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, cit., Conclusions, H), supra.