have consistently relied on the following elements to analyze reasonableness of time: (i) the complexity of the matter; (ii) the procedural activity of the interested party; (iii) the conduct of the judicial authorities, and (iv) the general effects on the legal situation of the person involved in the proceeding.113 84. The IACHR has also held that “[i]f the judicial branch is to serve effectively as an organ for the control, guarantee and protection of human rights, it must not only be constituted formally, but it also has to be independent and impartial, and its rulings must be carried out.”114 The Court has held that one of the components of the right to judicial protection recognized in Article 25 the American Convention is that states must "ensure the means to enforce the decisions and final judgments issued by . . . competent authorities."115 Thus, effectiveness of judgments depends on their enforcement.116 85. As regards reasonableness of time, the Commission notes, first, that the State did not offer any explanation for the almost 11 years that it took for the final judgment to be rendered. 86. In spite of that, the Commission finds that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the suit and its settlement were particularly complex such as to justify the above delay. As regards the activity of the judicial authorities, as stated in the proven facts, although the decision at first instance was rendered on December 23, 1999, and the one at second instance on June 13, 2001, the cassation appeal was not disposed of until more than eight years later. The Commission notes that given the nature of the cassation appeal, the debate essentially centered on questions of law. Apart from that, the Commission has no information about the proceedings conducted during that interval and, as was mentioned, no justification was forthcoming from the State either. As to the activity of the interested party, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Mr. Colindres did anything to hinder the process. 87. Based on the above, the Commission considers that the civil suit did not conform to the guarantee of reasonable time, in violation of Article 8(1) of the American Convention taken in conjunction with Article 1(1) of that instrument, to Mr. Colindres' detriment. 88. Finally, as of this writing, the Commission has received no information that Mr. Colindres has received the reparation ordered in the context of the civil suit. Consequently, the Commission finds that apart from taking unreasonably long in the terms analyzed above, that mechanism was also not enforced in a timely manner, in violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. 3. Right of Access to Public Service 89. Article 23(1)(c) recognizes the right of judges to have access to public service under “under general conditions of equality.” The Court has interpreted that article to mean that the arbitrary impairment of the tenure of judges violates the right to judicial independence enshrined in Article 8(1) of the Convention in conjunction with the right to have tenured access under general conditions of equality, to the public service of one’s country, has established in Article 23(1)(c).117 113 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Massacre of Santo Domingo v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations. Judgment of November 30, 2012. Series C No. 259, par. 164. 114IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the Inter-American Court, Discharged and Retired Employees of the Office of the Comptroller, Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 52. 115I/A Court H.R., Case of Suárez Rosero v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, par. 65; and Case of Rosendo Cantú et al. v. Mexico. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs . Judgment of August 31, 2010, Series C No. 216, par. 166. 116 I/A Court H.R., Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 104. I/A Court H.R., Case of López Lone et al. v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of October 5, 2015. Series C No. 302, par. 192. 117 20