13 provided content to the provisions of the Pact of San José in order to update the content of the articles based on the new realities that have been submitted to its jurisdictional function. 66 35. It is important to stress that the Inter-American Court, as any organ with jurisdictional functions, has the inherent authority to determine the scope of its own competence (compétence de la compétence). When making this determination, the Court must take into account that the instruments accepting the optional clause concerning the binding jurisdiction (Article 62(1) of the Convention) presume that the States that deposit this instrument accept the right of the Court to decide any dispute concerning its jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court has indicated previously that the broad terms in which the American Convention was drafted indicate that the Inter-American Court exercises full jurisdiction over all its articles and provisions.67 II. THE FAILURE TO EXECUTE JUDGMENTS ON THE SOCIAL RIGHTS AND THE IMPACT ON OLDER PERSONS a) The right of access to justice broadly construed 36. The Inter-American Court has established that “the fact that a judgment is at the stage of execution does not exclude a possible violation of the right to an effective remedy,” insofar as “the process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling by the proper application of this ruling.”68 37. The Inter-American Court has indicated that the responsibility of the State does not end when the competent authorities issue a decision or a judgment, but also requires the State to ensure the means to execute the final decisions in order to provide effective protection to the declared rights.69 The Court has also established that the 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 by the proper application of that ruling.” 70 38. Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention establishes the undertaking of the States “to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted” and this protects the individual against acts that violate his or her fundamental rights. Accordingly, the effectiveness of judgments and judicial orders “depends on their execution […] because a For example, the Court has recently interpreted the scope of Article 6 of the American Convention. See, Case of Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of October 20, 2016. Series C No. 318. Cases related to the right to the truth can also be noted: Case of the Campesino Community of Santa Bárbara v. Peru. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, and the Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355. 66 Cf. Case of Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009. Series C No. 198, paras. 16 and 17. 67 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panamá. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of Fornerón and daughter v. Argentina. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of April 27, 2012. Series C No. 242, para. 107 68 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, and Case of Cuscul Pivaral et al. v. Guatemala. Preliminary objection, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 23, 2018. Series C No. 359, para. 169. 69 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Jurisdiction. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73 and Case of Liakat Ali Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 33. 70