-27of the actions of the Legislative Assembly by the Constitutional Division resulted in the ineffectiveness of the amparo application. 111. In relation to the above, the Court recalls that, by virtue of the contributing or complementary nature of international protection, the State is the main guarantor of people's human rights, and therefore, if there is an act that violates said rights, it is the State that must resolve the matter domestically and, if applicable, make reparations, before having to respond to international bodies.156 112. Consequently, the Court concluded that the State is internationally responsible for violation of articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in article 1(1) of the same instrument when it comes to Eduardo Benjamín Colindres Schonenberg. 113. Meanwhile, in the case at hand, the Court has already indicated that Mr. Colindres Schonenberg was removed from office without this possibility being established by law. Therefore, the existence of an appeal that could be filed against the decision of the Legislative Assembly was not regulated, either. Therefore, the Court does not consider it necessary to analyze the alleged violation of Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention. B.4 Reasonable time regarding the civil claim 114. The Commission indicated that the civil proceeding exceeded the reasonable term, without any elements arising that would allow it to be considered that the lawsuit and its resolution were of a special complexity that would justify the delay. The representatives and the State did not present arguments in this regard. 115. This Court has considered that a prolonged delay constitutes, in principle, and on its own, a violation of judicial guarantees.157 In this sense, this alleged wrongful act, related to the first dismissal, has not been repaired by the State. 116. The Court has indicated that the “reasonable period” referred to in Article 8(1) of the Convention must be assessed in relation to the total duration of the procedure that takes place until the final judgment is delivered.158 In this case, the period corresponding to the stage of execution of the judicial sentence must also be taken into account in order to effectively collect the compensation.159 117. Mr. Colindres Schonenberg filed the lawsuit on January 12, 1999. After a second instance decision and a judgment of cassation, on December 22, 2009, the Supreme Court of Justice issued a final judgment.160 On February 7, 2014, the State made the payment.161 Therefore, the procedure lasted for a total of fifteen years. Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 07, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 66, and Case of Villamizar Durán et al. v. Colombia Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 20, 2018. Series C No. 364, para. 129. 157 Cf. Case of Hilaire, Constantine, and Benjamin et al. Trinidad and Tobago. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of June 21, 2002. Series C No. 94, para. 145, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al v. Colombia Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 13, 2018. Series C No. 352, para. 105. 158 Cf. Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 71, and Case of Munárriz Escobar et al. v. Peru Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 20, 2018. Series C No. 355, para. 107. 159 Cf. Case of Furlan and Family v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 31, 2012. Series C No. 246, para. 151. 160 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of El Salvador of December 22, 2009 (evidence file, folio 598). 161 Cf. Copy of the certification of the check dated February 7, 2014 (evidence file, folio 1618), and notarial certificate of settlement of February 6, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1615 and 1616). 156