29 107. The Court emphasizes that in the cases of “Five Pensioners” v. Peru and Acevedo Buendía et al. (“Discharged and Retired Employees of the Comptroller’s Office”) v. Peru, also related to pension matters, the Court had already established that the failure by the State to comply with judicial decisions ordering the payment of pensions, as well as failure to execute these, violates the right to judicial protection (Articles 25(1) and 25(2)(c) and the right to property (Article 21). Therefore, it is the task of this Court to analyze whether, based on the facts of this specific case and the arguments of the parties and the Commission, Peru violated those rights. However, the case at hand has some particular features that differentiate it from those decided previously by this Court, since the execution of the judicial rulings issued in the amparo proceedings was further complicated by the privatization of the State-owned company that was originally responsible for paying Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension. The Court will also consider whether there was an autonomous violation of the right to social security (right to a pension), as alleged by the representatives, based on the interpretation of Article 26 the Convention. 108. Thus, the dispute in this case concerns the presumed failure to comply with the amparo judgments that recognized Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to receive a pension under the pension scheme of Decree Law No. 20530, together with the alleged failure to adopt coercive measures to ensure its implementation, and the impact that this had on the victim’s right to social security and right to property. Therefore, the Court deems it important to emphasize that it is not appropriate to determine the responsibility of the privatized company in relation to the pensioner, but rather the State’s failure to comply with res judicata decisions issued in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores at the domestic level, for its failure to execute those decisions within a reasonable time, and the effect on pension rights caused by the privatization of the State company Tintaya S.A., as well as the alleged consequences of all these matters on his right to property. Accordingly, in this section the Court will analyze: a) the right to effective judicial protection in the execution of judgments and privatization of companies; b) reasonable time; c) the right to social security, and d) the right to property. A. Right to effective judicial protection in the execution of judgments and privatization of companies A.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 109. The Commission alleged that two amparo judgments delivered in 1993 and 1999 ordered that Mr. Muelle Flores be reinstated in the pension scheme governed by Decree Law No. 20530, and that his pension be paid. Also, in the lawsuit filed by the company, the court ruled that Mr. Muelle Flores’ inclusion in that system was lawful. Despite this, the Commission indicated that those judicial decisions were not executed and that “none of the judicial authorities hearing the execution of judgment proceedings established any coercive mechanism to ensure that Mr. Muelle’s recognized right would actually be exercised,” beyond the orders to execute the measure, adopted on four occasions, which were also not implemented. 110. The Commission further alleged that the public company initially failed to comply with the judgment of February 2, 1993, which was favorable to Mr. Muelle Flores, prior to privatization. One of the arguments adduced by the company for not complying with that judgment was that the company had been privatized after the ruling had been issued, this being one of the obstacles that impeded - and continues to impede - effective compliance with the judgment and its execution. The Commission stressed that “the right to effective judicial protection imposed an obligation on the State to ensure that the privatization of the State company did not undermine Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to his pension on the terms recognized judicially,” and stressed that States must apply safeguards to ensure that the privatization of State companies does not undermine the rights of workers, something that did not occur in this case. It emphasized that although the State had mentioned a “supposed regulation on the matter,” this was issued after the privatization process. It added that the inefficacy demonstrated by the Judiciary to date to ensure implementation of its rulings in the context of that