80. The Commission considers that those precedents are fully applicable to the instant case. The reason is that Mr. Muelle, just like the victims in the two cases referred to above: 1) was lawfully included in the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme, as ratified by the courts in both amparo actions and in the ruling on the suit filed by the company itself; ii) was prevented from continuing to receive the benefits that went with that pension scheme; iii) filed judicial appeals seeking his reincorporation in that scheme; iv) received final court judgments supporting his claim and v) has still not seen those judgments executed. All those factors have impaired Mr. Muelle Flores' net worth. 81. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violating the right to private property established in Article 21 of the American Convention in conjunction with the obligations contained in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. VI. CONCLUSIONS 82. Based on the considerations of fact and law presented throughout this report on the merits, the Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of the rights to judicial guarantees, private property, and judicial protection recognized in Articles 8.1, 21, and 25.2. c) of the American Convention, in conjunction with the obligations contained in Articles 1.1 thereof, to the detriment of Oscar Muelle Flores. The Commission likewise concludes that the State failed to meet its obligations under Article 2 of the same instrument. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 83. In light of the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, RECOMMENDS THAT THE STATE OF PERU: 1. Comply as soon as possible with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993 and the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. This means that the Peruvian State must immediately take the steps needed to pay Mr. Muelle Flores' pension on the terms recognized by the courts, that is to say, those of the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme. This includes paying him the pensions he did not receive from his retirement through to the date payment is effected. Bearing in mind the standards set forth in this report on the obligations of the State in connection with the privatization of State-owned enterprises, Peru may not cite privatization as an excuse not to comply with this recommendation. 2. Make full reparation for the violations declared in this report, including due compensation for material (property) and immaterial damages. 3. Adopt legislative and other measures needed to avoid a recurrence of the violations substantiated in this report. In that regard, the State takes such steps as are needed to: i) Ensure that State-owned enterprises comply with the judicial rulings recognizing former workers' pension rights; ii) Ensure that in privatization processes proper safeguards are in place to prevent the compliance with judicial decisions in favor of retirees; iii) Ensure that judgment execution processes meet conventional standards of straightforwardness and promptness; and iv) Ensure that the judicial authorities hearing such processes are legally empowered to apply, and do in practice apply, the coercive mechanisms needed to guarantee compliance with judicial rulings. 17