37 the effective exercise of rights […].”154 This would contribute to ensure that the right protected by the decision is implemented. 141. In this regard, the State of Peru argued that its domestic legislation includes various laws that regulate coercive measures to ensure that the judicial authorities execute judgments and judicial decisions. The State pointed out that Article 139, subparagraph 2 of the Peruvian Constitution establishes that “No authority shall […] invalidate orders under res judicata […] or delay their execution.” Likewise, it stressed that the Organic Law of the Judiciary,155 the Code of Constitutional Procedure,156 the Code of Civil Procedure,157 the case law of the Constitutional Court 158 and administrative resolutions, establish coercive mechanisms, ranging from the imposition of fines to arrest for up to 24 hours, as well as criteria for the execution of judicial decisions.159 Regarding the latter, the State reported that Law No. 30137, published in December 2013, establishes criteria for the prioritization of payments arising from judicial decisions, one of these being related to the payment of pensions.160 154 Cf. Report of the United Nations Secretary General on The question of the effective exercise, in all countries, of economic, social and cultural rights, Mr. Ban Ki-moon. Doc. A/HRC/25/31, December 19, 2013, para. 35. Cf. Article 4 of the Organic Law of the Judiciary (LOPJ) establishes that: “[e]very individual and authority is required to comply with and enforce judicial or administrative decisions issued by a competent judicial authority, in its own terms, without assessing its content or its merits, restricting its effects or interpreting its scope, under civil, criminal or administrative responsibility determined by law. No authority, [...] may revoke judicial resolutions with the authority of res judicata, modify their content, or delay their execution […]." 156 The Peruvian Code of Constitutional Procedure, in Article 22, on the execution of judgments, states: A judgment ordering the realization of a benefit of giving, doing or not doing is immediately actionable. For enforcement purposes, and in accordance with the specific content of the ruling and the magnitude of the constitutional offense, the Judge may order fixed or accumulative fines and even order the dismissal of the person responsible. Any of these coercive measures should be included in the judgment as admonition; however, these may be modified ex officio or at the request of a party during the execution phase. The amount of the fines is determined at the Judge’s discretion, based on the Procedural Reference Unit and having regard also to the financial capacity of the defendant. Payment shall be made effective with assistance from the police, a financial institution or the assistance of whomsoever the Judge deems pertinent. The Judge may decide that the accumulated fines of up to 100% for each calendar day, until the judicial order has been obeyed. The amount collected from fines shall constitute the income of the Judiciary, unless the party complies with judicial order within three days of receiving the fine. In this last case, the amount collected shall be returned in its entirety to its owner." 157 Article 53 of the Civil Procedure Code establishes the following: "Article 53. - Coercive powers of the Judge. Pursuant to the objectives of Article 52, the Judge may: 1. Impose a compulsory and progressive fine to ensure that the party or the individual concerned complies with its mandates according to the content of his ruling. The fine is established at the discretion of the Judge within the limits set forth in this Code; the fine may be modified or revoked if he considers that the disobedience has been or is justified. 2. Order the detention, for up to 24 hours, of any person who resists his mandate without justification, causing injury to a party or to the [... Judiciary. Considering the importance and urgency of his mandate, the Judge will determine the successive, individual or joint application of the sanctions established in this Article. Sanctions shall be applied without detriment to compliance with the mandate." 158 The Constitutional Court of Peru has indicated that the right to the effectiveness of the judgment: "[d]emands a particular type of action. And, if the right to the execution of judicial resolutions guarantees that the decisions issued in a judgment or judicial ruling are executed, it is clear that those who issue them or those who are responsible for executing them, have the obligation to adopt, according to the applicable laws and procedures –and regardless of whether or not the resolution is to be executed by a public entity -necessary and timely measures for its strict enforcement.” Cf. Judgment of lTC in Exp. No. 015-2001-AI/TC, Exp. No. 016-2001-AI/TC, and Exp. No. 004-2002-AI/TC (Dossiers), Legal basis 12. 159 Cf. Administrative Resolution N° 149-2012-P-PJ “Circular on guidelines for judgment execution proceedings and monetary payments issued against the State,” issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on April 10, 2012; Administrative Resolution N° 128-2008-CE-PJ and Circular issued by the Executive Council of the Judiciary, on May 9, 2008 and March 2005, establishing criteria for “all the country’s judicial bodies to adopt appropriate measures for the execution, within a reasonable time, of condemnatory judgments issued against State entities” (evidence file, folios 1702 to 1708). 160 Cf. Law No. 30137, “Law establishing criteria for the prioritization of payments related to judicial rulings”, published in 155