under Article 25 of the Convention it is possible to identify two specific State responsibilities. The first is to establish by law and ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities that protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights or that entail the determination of their rights and obligations. The second is to guarantee the measures to execute the respective decisions and final judgments issued by these competent authorities so that the rights declared or recognized are truly protected. This is because a judgment that is res judicata grants certainty in relation to the right or dispute examined in the specific case and, consequently, one of its effects is the obligation or need to comply with it. The procedure should be aimed at implementing the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling by its appropriate application. 651 Therefore, the effectiveness of judgments and judicial decision depends on their execution;652 otherwise, this would suppose the denial of the right involved.653 406. Having indicated the above, in relation to the illegal logging on the communal territory, the Court has verified that State organs have issued various decisions aimed at protecting the rights of the members of the communities involved, precisely in relation to collective ownership (supra, para. 357). 407. Hence, in addition to the findings of the Public Prosecution Service during the disciplinary proceedings (supra para. 142), the Court is aware of: (a) an application for amparo decided in first instance by the Cundimarca Administrative Court, on September 7, 2001, ordering CODECHOCÓ “to take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the administrative decision ordering the suspension of logging in that sector.”654 Following an appeal (supra para. 143), this application for amparo was confirmed by the Constitutional Court on October 17, 2003,655 in relation to the fundamental rights of the applicants that had been violated owing to the illegal logging on their territory, and (b) in May 1993, by the Supreme Court of Justice (supra para. 134) and, on October 22, 1993, the Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court revoked the order given to CODECHOCÓ to officialize, by contracts, the logging permits granted by resolution 3595 of December 1992 to Maderas del Darién S.A (supra para. 134). 408. Regarding the decisions of the Cundimarca Administrative Court of September 7, 2001, and of the Constitutional Court of October 17, 2003, the Court notes that no specific evidence was provided establishing clearly that the said decisions had been complied with fully and promptly. To the contrary, the only information that the Court has is that provided by the Ombudsman’s Office according to which, by Resolution No. 538 of April 27, 2005, CODECHOCÓ had imposed a preventive measure consisting in the suspension of any type of forestry exploitation, except “that carried out by law,” underway in the jurisdiction of Chocó department without the respective permit, concession or authorization issued by CODECHOCÓ (supra paras. 141 to 143). In other words, the Court notes that three and a half years passed between the decision of the Cundimarca Administrative Court and 18 months between the decision of the Constitutional Court of October 17, 2003, and Resolution No. 538 of CODECHOCÓ consisting in C No. 220, para. 142. Also, 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. 651 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 73, and Case of the Constitutional Tribunal (Camba Campos et al.) v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of August 28, 2013. Series C No. 268, para. 228. 652 Cf. Case of the Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v. Ecuador, para. 263, and, mutatis mutandi, Case of Baena Ricardo et al., v. Panama, Competence. para. 82, and Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 104. 653 Cf. Case of Furlan and family members v. Argentina. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs, para. 209, and Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, Competence, para. 82. 654 Cf. Cundimarca Administrative Court, First Section, proceedings A.T 00-1378 of September 7, 2001 (evidence file, folio 46913). 655 Cf. Constitutional Court, Judgment T-955 of October 17, 2003, pp. 92 to 95 (evidence file, folios 23 to 226). 129