simply, and comprehensively accomplish their purpose.374 The provisions governing judicial independence also need to be developed correctly to ensure timely execution of judicial rulings and guarantee that decisions of last resort be binding and mandatory.375 The Court holds that in a system based on the principle of the rule of law, all public authorities, within the framework of their jurisdiction, must take heed of judicial decisions and promote their execution, without hindering the purpose and scope of the decision or unduly delaying its implementation.376 145. The Court would further emphasize that Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the obligation to enforce “such remedies when granted.” This includes guaranteeing effective mechanisms for the enforcement of judicial decisions or final judgments issued against both state and private entities. It is also essential to adopt appropriate and effective enforcement mechanisms to ensure, where necessary, that the authorities who deliver decisions or judgments execute them, thereby ensuring real protection of the right recognized in a final ruling.377 146. Even in cases involving the state, it is the state itself that must enforce judgments against it. In any case, the Court considers that the procedural momentum to achieve compliance with a right pursuant to a judicial ruling cannot rely entirely on the victim, since the state is obligated to guarantee that right.378 147. This Court also believes that the State’s obligation to guarantee compliance with judicial rulings takes on particular significance in cases such as this, in which a government institution has been sentenced to pay an amount of money to older adults. As it happens, these institutions, whether they are part of the central government or decentralized branches of government, can use their power and the procedural privileges usually granted to them, such as the ban on attaching their assets, to sidestep execution of judgments handed down against them.379 374 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106, and Case of Jenkins v. Argentina. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2019. Series C No. 397, para. 119. 375 That is, compliance must be compulsory, and if decisions are not obeyed voluntarily, enforcement measures can be applied. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106 and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 127. 376 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106 and Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 127. 377 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 128. Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru, supra, para. 161. The Inter-American Commission has also established an important standard regarding the lengths to which victims should have to go in seeking compliance with judicial rulings in their favor. Accordingly, the IACHR considered that states should enforce such judicial decisions immediately, without making it necessary for the persons affected to bring additional actions of a criminal, administrative, or any other nature, in order to secure their enforcement. IACHR, “Access to Justice as a Guarantee of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. A Review Of the Standards Adopted by the Inter-American System Of Human Rights,” September 7, 2007, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.129, para. 335. The European Court of Human Rights, in turn, has said: “A person who has obtained a judgment against the State may not be expected to bring separate enforcement proceedings […]. In such cases, the defendant State authority must be duly notified of the judgment and is thus well placed to take all necessary initiatives to comply with it or to transmit it to another competent State authority responsible for execution.” TEDH, Case of Burdov v. Russia (No. 2), No. 33509. Judgment of January 15, 2009, para. 68. 378 379 In this sense, the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), an advisory body to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, has developed standards on the independence, impartiality, and professional competence of judges, by which, “in a state governed by the Rule of law, public entities are above all bound to respect judicial decisions, and to implement them in a rapid way ‘ex officio’. The very idea of a state body refusing to obey a court decision undermines the concept of primacy of the law.” It also held, “A state should respect judgments delivered against it without delay and without requiring the claimant to use enforcement procedures.” Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, Opinion No. 13 (2010), On the Role of Judges in the Enforcement of Judicial Decisions. Available at: https://rm.coe.int/168074820e 51