38 142. The Court indeed confirms the existence of such laws and of a range of coercive mechanisms for executing judicial decisions. However, it also notes that many of those rules were adopted many years after the first amparo judgment of February 2, 1993, though it emphasizes that several were in force during and after that date. Likewise, from the body of evidence contained in the file, the Court finds that the State, through its enforcement courts, did not employ any of the mechanisms available to compel the State authorities to execute the payment of Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension in order to realize his right. While it is true that the judicial authorities required the private company to comply with the judicial ruling (supra para. 83), on the uncertain understanding that the private company was the entity obligated to comply with the payment, the Court finds no evidence that effective coercive measures were adopted against the company. Despite the fact that from the time of the privatization until the present, the judicial authorities could not settle the debate as to who had the obligation to pay the pension, it is important to emphasize that, although that responsibility fell on the private company, the State retained its obligation to execute judgments issued against private entities, pursuant to Article 25(2)(c). 143. Furthermore, by not specifying who would be responsible for paying Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, the State created obstacles to compliance with the judgments that were not resolved by the Judiciary during the execution process. The negative effects of the privatization on Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to a pension were not reversed in court, since the judges did not conduct a detailed analysis of the victim’s situation and did not take steps to effectively decide who was responsible for the payments. The Court notes that several resolutions determined that the private company was responsible for the payments; however, these decisions were subsequently reversed, with the courts concluding to the contrary, but without having proved whether or not the private company had indeed assumed the liabilities of Tintaya S.A. This conduct by the judges responsible for enforcement contributed to the delay in the proceedings and aggravated the non-compliance with the domestic rulings. 144. From the information available to the Court, it was not until 2013 that the Second Civil Chamber assessed the 1994 sale contract and determined that the private purchaser had not assumed the liabilities of Tintaya S.A. Despite this, and despite the regulatory changes that gave the MEF responsibility for the payments in cases such as this, and the fact that the pensions system under Decree Law No. 20530 is a system administered by the State, that decision was overturned in subsequent resolutions. However to date, the execution of judgment process has still not concluded – that is, 25 years after the first amparo judgment issued by the Supreme Court. The Court also notes that it was not until 2014 and 2015 that the Thirty-third Civil Court of Lima requested information from the MEF and other State bodies in order to clarify which assets and liabilities the private company had assumed, in other words, more than 20 years after privatization. Accordingly, the Court considers that the State failed to adopt effective measures to ascertain which government authority should comply with the judicial rulings or if, on the contrary, that responsibility fell on the private company, in order to reverse the negative effects of the privatization caused by the State itself. 145. In this regard, the Court notes that the State not only failed to comply with the domestic rulings, but also that the judicial authorities did not ensure compliance with either of the two amparo judgments during the execution process. Moreover, the State did not adopt the safeguards necessary to clearly establish which entity would be responsible for paying Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, a problem that was not resolved by the judicial authorities, either before or after privatization, and it also failed to adopt coercive mechanisms to ensure compliance with the rulings. The failure to execute the judgments, which continues to this day, and the Judiciary’s inefficacy in addressing the obstacles the Official Gazette El Peruano, on December 27, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1710 to 1711).