-45The expert witness made reference to the “procedures set forth in the Peruvian laws to annul or deny res judicata effects to final enforceable judgments,” and “technical and regulatory proposals that may contribute to the compliance with judgments by the Peruvian government,” noting the guildelines proposed by the Peruvian Ombudsman. b) Proposed by the common intervener 2. Alejandro Silva-Reina, Executive Secretary of the Coordinadora Nacional de Derechos Humanos del Perú (CNDDHH) (National Coordinating Board for Human Rights of Peru) The expert witness noted the importance of the effectiveness of judgments both domestically and internationally. The right to effectiveness guarantees compliance with court judgments and that “the party who has obtained a protection decision by means of a favourable judgment, should have their rights restored and receive compensation, if applicable, for the damage sustained.” “[A]s with all fundamental righs, the right to the effectiveness of court judgments is not an absolute right, i.e., its exercise is not unconditional, unlimited or unrestricted.” Judges pronouncing the judgments or responsible for enforcing them “are under the duty to take the […] necessary and appropriate steps to cause the judgments to be fully complied with, pursuant to the applicable procedures.” The expert witness made reference to the Ombudsman´s Report No. 19 of October 1998 entitled “Non-compliance with judgments by the Public Administration”, noting that “from the start of its work assisting citizens up to August 1998, the Ombudsman’s office processed 101 complaints submitted against various State entities for failure to comply with final judgments against them.” The expert witness made reference to the main constitutional rights affected by the failure to enforce judgments resulting from the non-compliance therewith by State entities, including the rights to effective judicial protection, to the due process of the law and to equality. B) TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE 188. On September 20, 2005, the Court received in a public hearing the testimony of three witnesses proposed by the common intervener and by the State (supra para. 64). Below is a summary of the relevant parts of such testimonies. TESTIMONIES a) Proposed by the representatives’ common intervener 1. Corina Antonieta Tarazona-Valverde, former employee of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) She worked for the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) from 1980 to 1996. One day in 1996, she