33 127. Likewise, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be accessible to the parties, without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, simply, and comprehensively accomplish their purpose.144 Additionally, the provisions governing the independence of the judicial order must be made in an appropriate way so as to ensure the timely execution145 of judgments and guarantee the binding and obligatory nature of the decisions of last resort.146 The Court considers that in a system based on the principle of the rule of law, all public authorities, within the framework of their jurisdiction, must take heed of judicial decisions and promote their execution, without hindering the purpose and scope of the decision or unduly delaying its implementation.147 128. This Court also emphasizes that Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the obligation to ensure that competent authorities “shall enforce such remedies when granted.” This includes guaranteeing effective mechanisms for the enforcement of judicial decisions or final judgments issued both against State and private entities. It is also essential to adopt appropriate and effective coercive mechanisms to ensure, where necessary, that the authorities who issue decisions or judgments execute these, thereby ensuring the protection of the right recognized in a final ruling. 129. In the instant case, there is no dispute regarding Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to his pension and its equalization according to domestic laws, or as to whether the decision to withdraw him from the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme was consistent with the Convention or violated due process, since his right to a pension and his reinstatement in that system were ordered in the amparo judgments of the domestic courts and in the administrative proceeding (supra para. 73). Therefore, this Court will not refer to the violation of Article 8(1) as requested by the representatives in that regard (supra para. 113). The Court will proceed to divide its analysis in this section as follows: i) failure to comply with the final judgments delivered in the domestic courts; ii) the creation of obstacles to the enforcement of domestic judgments via privatization, and iii) the lack of effectiveness of the judgement execution process: absence of coercive mechanisms and measures to reverse the effects of privatization. i) Failure to comply with the final judgments delivered in the domestic courts 130. Mr. Muelle worked at a State-owned mining company until his retirement on September 30, 1990. In May of 1990, prior to his retirement, the State company enrolled him in the pension scheme governed by Decree Law No. 20530, as a result of which he received his equalized pension (supra para. 44) from October 1, 1990, until January 1991. However, in February of that same year, the company unilaterally suspended the application of that pension system (supra para. 49). In response, Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, para. 105, citing ECHR, Case of Matheus v. France, (No. 62740/01), Judgment of March 31, 2005, para. 58. According to the principles proposed by the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE), an advisory body of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on matters concerning the independence, impartiality and professional competence of judges, “the enforcement of judicial decisions should be fair, swift, effective and proportionate.” (Cf. Opinion No. 13 (2010), On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions. Available at: https://wcd.coe.int/wcd/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CCJE(2010)2&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&B ackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864. 144 145 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106. Cf. Advisory Opinion No. 13 (2010) On the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, Conclusions, F), supra note 84. See also Case of Matheus v. France, supra note 84, paras. 58 and subsq; and Cabourdin versus France, nº 60796/00, Judgment of April 11, 2006, paras. 28-30. 146 This means that compliance with such decisions is mandatory, and that if they are not obeyed voluntarily, they may be enforced coercively. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106. 147 The European Court has established in the Case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy: “While it may be accepted that Contracting States may [...] intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision, the consequence of such intervention should not be that execution is prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed or, still less, that the substance of the decision is undermined.” (Translation of the Secretariat of the Court). Cf. ECHR, Case of Inmobiliare Saffi v. Italy, n° 22774/93, Judgment of 28.07.1999, para. 74. Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador, supra, para. 106.