40 on several occasions about the delays in this process. With respect to the conduct of the judicial authorities, it emphasized that the rulings issued during the execution of judgment stage were ineffective in achieving compliance with the judgments issued, and considered that there had been unwarranted delays by the State in resolving several appeals filed by both parties, as well as long periods of inactivity during the execution phase. As to the fourth element, the Commission noted that another factor in determining what constitutes an unreasonable time was the adverse effect of the lengthy proceedings on Mr. Muelle Flores’ legal situation. The Commission stressed that the victim was more than 80 years of age and in a precarious financial and health situation, given that more than 27 years had elapsed without being able to enjoy his pension under the legally recognized terms. Accordingly, it concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of the right to a reasonable time established in Article 8(1) in relation to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. 151. The representatives agreed in all respects with the Commission’s arguments. They added that the State’s argument that “the execution of the plaintiff’s claim [was] no longer viable […] given that the respondent company was a private company,” was not worthy of consideration, since both the ONP and the MEF were aware of the execution process. They also held that, bearing in mind the provisions of Article 22 of Peru’s Code of Constitutional Procedure, which states that “a judgment that orders the implementation of a benefit that implies giving, doing or not doing is immediately actionable […]”, the long period that has elapsed without completing the execution process was clearly unreasonable. The representatives argued that because neither the Supreme Court judgment of February 1993 was not executed for more than 24 years, nor the 1999 judgment, the State had exceeded what could be considered a reasonable time to effectively execute those judgments. Consequently, they concluded that the State was responsible for the violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention, to the detriment of Mr. Muelle Flores. 152. The State argued that the Commission only assessed reasonable time in relation to the judgment of February 2, 1993, and not in relation to the judgment of the Constitutional Court on December 10, 1999. It therefore understood that, according to the Commission, there had been no violation of reasonable time regarding the second amparo proceeding. It also considered that the reasonable time must be counted from 2008, when the execution process was re-opened, and until the present. As to the complexity of the case, the State indicated that although a final judicial ruling existed, it was necessary to consider the regulatory changes introduced from 2002 to 2004, whereby “the execution of the judgment was no longer viable” because the respondent State-owned company that was originally obligated to pay the pension, was privatized and underwent changes of ownership and business name on several occasions. The State recalled that after the privatization, two jurisdictional bodies considered that the respondent company was not obliged to pay the pension, while Mr. Muelle Flores and another judicial body believed the opposite. In other words, the case was clearly a complex one and could not be reduced to the simple execution of a final judgment; on the contrary, the obligations assumed by the company when it was privatized had still not been determined, nor had the State entities that would eventually be required to do so. All this produced a state of “uncertainty” that demonstrated the complexity of the case. As to the procedural activity of the interested party, the State noted that the execution process was archived in 1999 and was reopened in 2008, at the request of Mr. Muelle, and therefore there was a long period of inactivity on the part of the interested party. Moreover, the State considered that Mr. Muelle Flores did not request the procedural intervention of the MEF or of another State entity, which could have settled the matter in a shorter time. It also indicated that there was insufficient activity on the part of Mr. Muelle, who only submitted two briefs in the last two years. 153. Regarding the conduct of the judicial authorities, the State argued that the judicial rulings issued had not been “completely ineffective,” given that Mr. Muelle Flores had received his pension between 1991 and 2001. It noted that the judicial bodies promoted the process, issuing resolutions that ordered the execution of the Supreme Court judgment and requesting information from the