VIII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE DUTY TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS AND TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 81 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 68. With respect to the proceedings to reclaim the amounts due for all the former maritime, port and river workers, the Commission indicated that, on March 11, 1991, the CCTM was dissolved and those workers were laid off. After the filing of the first writ of amparo against the CCTM so that the amounts owed be correctly calculated, the proceedings culminated on February 12, 1992 with the decision of the Supreme Court. The Commission added that the Sixth Civil Court did not approve, until August 20, 2003, the settlement of the statements that had been presented by the workers on January 10, 1995 and that it was not until June 2004 that the State authorized the MEF to make gradual payments of the amounts. It noted that the payments began twelve years after the Supreme Court’s decision and that it was not until December 2017 that the payments were completed, which is a violation of the right to effective judicial protection. 69. The Commission also pointed out that there was a sub-group of workers who, beginning in March 2010, continued to judicially claim the amounts not included or incorrectly calculated. With regard to this sub-group’s claim, it stated that, as recently as July 1, 2016, the Expert Report determined the amounts still owed, a decision that was later confirmed by the Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court and that, on May 23, 2017, that court ordered its compliance. The Commission noted that this order to comply begun in 2010 added seven years to the 18 years that had elapsed since the Supreme Court’s decision in 1992. Moreover, the Commission claimed that the payment ordered for this sub-group was not made. It also argued that to require each worker to individually accredit the amounts owed before the corresponding court and again bring a case would be incompatible with the right to judicial protection. 70. The Commission concluded that the State did not adopt the necessary measures to implement a judicial decision favorable to the workers and that, therefore, it violated and continues to violate the right of the former maritime, port and river workers to effective judicial protection due to the failure to enforce a decision in their favor, as well as the ineffectiveness of the judicial mechanisms to achieve such compliance, which did not meet the standards of simplicity and promptness required by the Convention. The foregoing, under the terms of the Convention, presupposes a violation of its Article 25(1) and 25(2)(c), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) thereof. In addition, the Commission concluded that the State is also responsible for violating the right to a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) of the Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Article 1(1). Finally, the Commission considered that the case of the workers represented by FEMAPOR is “one more example of an overall structural issue in Peru that consists in non-compliance with court judgments” made worse by “a practice by which the judicial authorities in charge of the execution of those decisions do not take the necessary measures to resolve fundamental issues regarding the implementation of the judgments, nor does it implement coercive mechanisms to ensure such compliance, thus materializing the right to effective judicial protection.” The Commission underscores that the State did not adopt for the workers of FEMAPOR and “has failed to adopt the necessary overall measures to remediate this situation and to prevent its reiteration.” Therefore, it concluded that the State also is responsible for violating Article 2 of the Convention. 71. The representatives Valdivia Ayala, Guerrero Cassuso, Rossi Mérida and Valdivia Bocanegra added that, from 1990 to date, successive governments have not complied with their 81 Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 19