-88effective recourse against acts that violate their fundamental rights enshrined in the Convention as well as in the constitution or laws of the state concerned. The remedy or amparo for legal protection provided for in Peruvian legislation constitutes a prompt and simple recourse designed to protect fundamental rights. 215. The statutory provision of said remedy is not at issue in this case; rather the debate concerns the non-compliance with 24 final judgments rendered by courts that granted several protective remedies (supra paras. 204(13), 204(15), 204(16), 204(17), 204(22), 204(37), 204(42), 204(43), 204(55), 204(61), 204(69), 204(80) y 204(86). 216. In that regard, it is necessary to indicate that the States have the responsibility to embody in their legislation and ensure due application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process of law before the competent authorities, which protect all persons subject to their jurisdiction from acts that violate their fundamental rights or which lead to the determination of the latter’s rights and obligations.156 However, State responsibility does not end when the competent authorities issue the decision or judgment. The State must also guarantee the means to execute the said final decisions.157 217. Furthermore, the Court has asserted 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.”158 218. In this regard, this Court finds that the State violated Article 25 of the Convention insofar as, in one case, the respondent State, for a long time, failed to comply with the judgments rendered by domestic courts159 and, in another case, it failed to ensure that an order of habeas corpus “be executed appropriately.” 160 219. The right to judicial protection would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system were to allow a final binding decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. 161 220. In regards to this case, the Court considers that in order to satisfy the right to access to an effective remedy it is not sufficient that final judgments be delivered in 156 Cf. Case of Cantos. Judgment of November 28, 2002. Series C No. 97, paras. 59 and 60; Case of the Mayagna Community (Sumo) Awas Tingni. Judgment of August 31, 2001. Series C No. 79, para. 135; and Case of Durand and Ugarte. Judgment of August 16, 2000. Series C No. 68, para. 121. 157 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction, supra note 7, para. 79. 158 Cf. Case of Baena-Ricardo et al. Jurisdiction, supra note 7, para. 73. 159 Cf. Case of the “Five Pensioners.” Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 138 and 141. 160 Cf. Case of Cesti-Hurtado. Judgment of September 29, 1999. Series C No. 56, para. 133. 161 Cf. Antoneeto v. Italy, No. 15918/89, para. 27, CEDH, July 20, 2000; Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], No. 22774/93, para. 63, EHCR, 1999-V; and Hornsby v. Greece, Judgment of 19 March 1997, ECHR, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, para. 40.