a decision was not issued in ten years. In the Commission's opinion, the period of more than ten years is unreasonable and constitutes a violation of the right to a guarantee of effective and prompt compliance with judicial decisions. 93. The presumed victim alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to a reasonable time period and to judicial protection in relation to the obligations derived from Article 1(1) of the Convention. 94. The State alleged that Mrs. Moya Solís had access to all the remedies defined in the law and obtained final decisions that were duly reasoned and justified in law. It considered that the duty of the State to satisfy the requirements of justice prevails over the guarantee of a reasonable time period. In any case, it considered that the right to a reasonable period of time was not violated, because although the matter was not complex, Mrs. Moya Solís's position changed during the processing of the appeal. It also alleged that, although Mrs. Moya Solís submitted briefs to advance her matter, between 1989 and 1995 there is no evidence that she submitted briefs to progress the appeal. It also highlighted that the alleged victim did not file the constitutional grievance appeal so that the case could be heard in the last and final instance by the Constitutional Court. In relation to the damage caused by the time that elapsed, it pointed out that Mrs. Moya Solís did not present any particular circumstance that made her especially vulnerable. B. Considerations of the Court 95. This Court recalls that the first paragraph of Article 25 of the Convention establishes that “[e]veryone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention […] ”. For its part, the Paragraph two, subparagraph c) of the same article provides that the States party to the Convention undertake to "ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted." On this matter, the Court has considered that the execution of the judgments must be complete, perfect, comprehensive and without delay.71 96. Regarding the effectiveness of the remedy, the Court has established that it is not enough for it to be provided for by the Constitution or the law or for it to be formally admissible, but rather that it must be truly suitable to establish whether a violation of human rights has been committed and provide whatever is necessary to remedy it. In this regard, although in this case the appeal for amparo was provided for in Peruvian law and was formally admissible, it was not an effective remedy. First, because despite the fact that Mrs. Moya Solís alleged that she had not been formally notified of the decision of non-ratification and that her rights had not been guaranteed during the process, the amparo judges declared the appeal inadmissible as they found that the decision of non-ratification did not constitute a violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right, without studying the alleged violations. To that extent, the remedy was not effective 97. In addition, when the first amparo process was found null and void, the Supreme Court ordered the judge in the case to issue the new ruling "having the ratifications file before it.”72 However, when the court found that said file was missing, it proceeded to issue a new sentence, Cr. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 105, and Case of the Workers of the Fireworks Factory in Santo Antônio de Jesus and their Families v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 15, 2020. Series C No. 407, para. 243. 71 72 Cf. Decision of August 4, 1986 (evidence file, folio 43). 26