2. Right to judicial protection regarding the guarantee of enforcement of judicial decisions (Articles 25.2.c and 1.1 of the American Convention) 123. In the inter-American human rights system, a properly functioning judiciary is an essential element for the protection of human rights. In fact, the fundamental corollary to the existence of human rights is the ability to resort to the judicial bodies so that they can make sure that rights are enforced.179 124. In order for the judiciary to be able to serve effectively as a body of human rights oversight, guarantee and protection, not only must it exist in form, but must also be independent, impartial and its judgments must be enforced. This constitutes a right, which the member states of the Organization of American States and especially States parties to the American Convention are obligated to respect and ensure for all persons subject to their jurisdiction.180 125. Enforcement of judgments is, therefore, closely connected to the very concept of the jurisdictional function of the State. The main objective of said function is to satisfy the fulfillment of the law and the guarantee of legal order and of individual liberty in specific cases and by means of decisions that are binding on the parties of the respective proceeding, so that peace and social harmony prevail.181 The corollary to jurisdictional function is that judicial decisions are enforced. Failure of judgments to be enforced not only undermines certainty of the law but also violates the essential principles of the Rule of Law. Achieving execution of judgment thus constitutes a fundamental aspect of the very essence of the Rule of Law.182 126. On this topic, the Inter-American Court has established that state responsibility does not end when the competent authorities issue the decision or judgment, inasmuch as the State must also ensure the means for execution of said final decision.183 The Court has thus held that: [T]he 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 this ruling.184 […] [That is, the State] must guarantee effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments delivered by [the] competent authorities so that the declared rights are protected effectively.185 179 IACHR, Annual Report 1998, Report on Paraguay, paras. 50 - 51. Annex 48. Also see Complaint of the IACHR in the Case of Mejía Idrovo vs. Ecuador, brought before the Inter-American Court on November 19, 2009. 180 See Application of the IACHR in the Case of Mejía Idrovo vs. Ecuador, brought before the Inter-American Court on November 19, 2009. 181 Véscovi, Enrique, Teoría General del Proceso [‘General Theory of Process’] Editorial Temis, Santafé de Bogotá, 1984, pg. 120. Also see Application of the IACHR in the Case of Mejía Idrovo vs. Ecuador, brought before the InterAmerican Court on November 19, 2009. 182 See Application of the IACHR in the Case of Mejía Idrovo vs. Ecuador, brought before the Inter-American Court on November 19, 2009. 183 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al v. Peru. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 216; I/A Court H/R, Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 18, 1999. Series C No. 61, para. 79. 184 185 I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 217. I/A Court H.R., Case of Acevedo Buendía et al (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller”) Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 1, 2009 Series C No. 198, para. 72; Case of Baena Ricardo et al, supra note 53, para. 82, and Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al, supra note 45, paras. 216 and 220.