77. In addition, under Article 25 of the Convention, States are required to provide a suitable and effective remedy for acts that violate their rights, whether those established in the Convention or in the law.111 78. The Commission observes that in the remedies invoked by Mr. Colindres, he alleged a variety of violations of due process, including the Legislative Assembly's lack of authority to remove a judge of the TSE from office, lack of jurisdiction and irregularities on the part of the special committee in ensuring his right of defense, and violation of the principle of legality (see pars. 31 and 33 above). The Commission notes that the response of the Constitutional Division was basically devoted to validating the interpretation by which the Assembly was competent to order the removal of TSE judges, while failing properly to examine Mr. Colindres' arguments. 79. The Commission considers that, although Mr. Colindres had access to the application for constitutional relief (amparo) as a protection mechanism with the potential to protect his rights, the Constitutional Division did not analyze the consistency of the arguments advanced by Mr. Colindres bearing in mind the rights protected in the Constitution and in the American Convention, as it was obliged to do. Notwithstanding that, as has been demonstrated, Mr. Colindres' submissions in the context of the amparo applications filed coincide with the violations of the American Convention already established in this report, against which the victim was entitled to judicial protection. On the contrary, those violations were validated by the Constitutional Division's findings. 80. At the same time, the Commission cannot overlook that while the amparo application filed by Mr. Colindres—which provisionally suspended enforcement of the challenged decision—was being processed, the record shows that the Legislative Assembly authorized the “formation” of a special committee to look into the institutional implications of the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice. According to certain deputies, that suspension in the context of a judicial proceeding on an application for constitutional relief was an "interference" and warranted investigating the Court to ascertain if “it really is a guarantor of the rule of law in our country.” The Commission has no information regarding that committee's proceedings; however, it notes that it became a kind of watchdog monitoring the decisions of the Supreme Court of Justice and, therefore, a possible source of external pressure on its activities. 81. In view of the above, the Commission finds that the Salvadoran State is also responsible for violation of the right to judicial protection recognized at Article 25 of the American Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the same instrument. f. Reasonable Time and Right to Judicial Protection in Relation to the Civil Suit 82. As is established in the proven facts, Mr. Colindres filed a civil suit seeking reparation for his first dismissal. That proceeding lasted from January 12, 1999, until December 22, 2009; in other words, almost 11 years. Furthermore, there is nothing in the information available to suggest that the State complied with reparation as ordered. In that connection, the Commission feels it pertinent to analyze that suit and its compliance taking into account the reasonable-time guarantee and the duty to comply with judicial decisions. 83. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes as one of the elements of a fair trial that tribunals reach a decision on cases submitted for their consideration within a reasonable time. Therefore, a long delay may per se constitute a violation of the principle of due process.112 The Commission and the Court 111 I/A Court H.R., Castillo Páez Case v. Peru. Merits. Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, par. 82; Case of ClaudeReyes et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, par. 131, and Case of Castañeda Gutman v. Mexico. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 6, 2008. Series C No. 183, par. 78. 112 I/A Court H.R., Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 160. 19