60 […] the inexistence of an effective recourse against the violation of the rights recognized by the Convention constitutes a transgression of the Convention by the State Party in which such a situation occurs. In that respect, it should be emphasized that, for such a recourse to exist, it is not enough that it is established in the Constitution or in the law or that it should be formally admissible, but it must be truly appropriate to establish whether there has been a violation of human rights and to provide everything necessary to remedy it. Those recourses that are illusory, owing to the general conditions in the country or to the particular circumstances of a specific case, shall not be considered effective. Recourses are illusory when it is shown that they are ineffective in practice, when the Judiciary lacks the necessary independence to take an impartial decision, or in the absence of ways of executing the respective decisions that are delivered. They are illusory when justice is denied, when there is an unjustified delay in the decision and when the alleged victim is impeded from having access to a judicial recourse156. 137. Moreover, in the report entitled “Non-compliance with judgments by the State Administration”, prepared in October 1998, the Peruvian Ombudsman indicated that: […] if compliance with judgments is left to the discretion of the Administration, the very notion of the rule of law is violated and conditions are created for a regime of arbitrariness and uncertainty, contrary to constitutional principles such as the separation of powers and the autonomy of the Judiciary. Also, the right to equality of all the parties to a proceeding is particularly harmed, by subordinating the execution of the judgment to the will of one of them; paradoxically the party which has lost. 138. In view of the foregoing, the Court considers that, during this stage, there was evident non-compliance with the judgments of the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of May 2, June 28, September 1 and 19, and October 10, 1994, in favor of the five pensioners. Given that there had already been judgments resulting from the applications for protective measures, which protect the status quo, the State cannot fail to comply with such decisions, at the risk of incurring in violations of the right to property and to judicial protection, without detriment to the provisions of paragraphs 116 and 177 of this judgment. c) Third stage 139. In this stage, it is worth emphasizing that the State complied with the judgments of the domestic judicial authorities. On March 18, 2002, the SBS executed its administrative decisions No. 250-2002, No. 251-2002, No. 252-2002, No. 253-2002 and No. 254-2002, issued on March 12, 2002, in which it decided to comply with the judgments; in other words, it decided to pay the pensions to which the alleged victims had a right in accordance with the law, deducting from the sum to be paid, the amounts that the MEF had paid to the pensioners, in application of article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792, from November 1, 1992, to January 23, 2002. It was also established that “it reserve[d] the right of the SBS to deduct, in accordance with the judgment of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, […] the amount that may have been paid in excess when complying [with the decisions ...], in which case, the provisions of [article] 53 of Decree Law 20530 will expressly be taken into account, which authorizes encumbering pensions to pay debts”157. 156 Cf. Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 2, para. 113; Ivcher Bronstein case, supra note 150, paras. 136 and 137; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisery Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24. 157 Cf. administrative decision SBS No. 250-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Carlos Torres Benvenuto (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, appendix 6 of the communication of July