company was not an element to be taken into account when analyzing the right to effective judicial protection of the pensioners99. 66. The IACHR agrees with the Committee's and the European Court of Human Rights’ comments and considers that the right to effective judicial protection required the State to ensure that privatization of the State-owned company did not strip Mr. Muelle of his judicially recognized pension rights. The Commission has no information regarding any measure adopted by the State to ensure that privatization of the company would not deprive the petitioner of his right to effective judicial protection. 67. The Commission also points out that the resolutions issued during the execution stage of the Supreme Court judgment did not examine that situation in detail or its implications for Mr. Muelle's rights. That was another factor that delayed the compliance procedure and, ultimately, made it impossible for the rulings in favor of the petitioner to be effectively executed by the company or another State authority. In fact, no steps were taken to verify whether the privatized company had or had not taken on the State-owned company's liabilities. and, if it had not, to determine which State authority was responsible with complying with the Supreme Court's decision. On the contrary, the judicial authorities responsible for overseeing execution of judgment limited themselves to the conclusion that it had not been proven whether the privatized company had taken over the State-owned company's liabilities. Consequently, in addition to the company's failure to comply and the failure to adopt measures to avoid its privatization violating Mr. Muelle's rights, the judgment execution process also failed to comply with its essential purpose and therefore turned out to be ineffective. 68. In light of the above, the Commission considered that, 24 years after the first judicial ruling in Mr. Muelle's favor, the State continues to violate his right to effective judicial protection, given the failure to execute final judgments handed down in his favor and the ineffectiveness of judicial mechanisms subsequently activated to achieve said compliance. This situation left Mr. Muelle defenseless and in a still ongoing state of legal uncertainty that, to this day, has prevented him from duly re-establishing rights recognized by the competent authorities. 69. The Commission has therefore concluded that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of rights established in Articles 25.1, and 25.2.c) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. 70. In addition, and bearing in mind the above considerations, the Commission consider that Mr. Muelle's case is another example of a far-reaching structural issue of failure to comply with court judgments, exacerbated by a practice on the part of the judicial authorities responsible for enforcing said judgments of failing to put in place coercive mechanisms to ensure compliance and hence the material realization of the right to effective judicial protection. The Commission underscores the fact that, despite being aware of this issue, the Peruvian State has not adopted the general measures required to correct this state of affairs and prevent it from happening again. The Commission considers, therefore, that the State is also responsible for violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. 4. Reasonable time for executing internal judgments 71. Article 8(1) of the American Convention establishes as one of the elements of a fair trial that courts reach a decision on cases submitted for their consideration within a reasonable time. Therefore, a long delay may per se constitute a violation of judicial guarantees.100 While the IACHR and the Court have 99 ECHR, Arras et al. v. Italy, Judgment of February 14, 2002. I/A Court HR. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas v. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, par. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community v. Suriname. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 160. 100 14