26 81. Likewise, when considering the violation of article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter “the European Convention”), which embodies the right to a fair trial, the European Court established in Hornsby v. Greece, that: “[…] that right would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. […] Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the ‘trial’ […]”].52 (Emphasis added) 82. In light of the above, this Court considers that, in order to comply with the right to access to justice, it is not sufficient that a final ruling be delivered during the respective proceeding or appeal,53 declaring rights and obligations, or provided protection to certain persons. It is also necessary that there are effective mechanisms to execute the decisions or judgments, so that the declared rights are protected effectively. The execution of such decisions and judgments should be considered an integral part of the right to access to justice, understood in its broadest sense, as also encompassing full compliance with the respective decision. The contrary would imply the denial of this right. 83. The above-mentioned considerations are applicable to international proceedings before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights. In the judgments on merits and reparations and costs, the Inter-American Court decides whether the State is internationally responsible and, when it is, orders the adoption of a series of measures of reparation to make the consequences of the violation cease, guarantee the violated rights, and repair the pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage produced by the violations.54 As previously stated (supra paras. 61 and 62), the responsible States are obliged to comply with the provisions of the decisions of the Court and may not invoke provisions of domestic law in order not to execute them. If the responsible State does not execute the measures of reparations ordered by the Court at the domestic level, it is denying the right to access to international justice. D) LEGAL GROUNDS FOR MONITORING COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COURT 84. With regard to the legal grounds for the competence of the Inter-American Court to monitor compliance with its decisions, it is necessary to consider the provisions of Articles 33, 6(1), 6(3) and 65 de the American Convention, and also those of Article 29(a); the provisions of Article 30 of the Statute of the Court, and of Article 31(1) of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. 85. Article 33 of the Convention establishes that: 52 Hornsby v. Greece judgment of 19 March 1997, ECHR, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997II, para. 40; and Cf. Antonetto c. Italie, no. 15918/89, para. 27, CEDH, 20 juillet 2000; and Immobiliare Saffi v. Italy [GC], no. 22774/93, para. 63, ECHR, 1999-V. 53 Cf. “Five Pensioners” case, supra note 32, paras. 138 and 141; and Cantos case, supra note 31, para. 55. 54 Cf. Bulacio case, supra note 30, para. 72; Juan Humberto Sánchez case, supra note 31, paras. 149 and 150; and Las Palmeras case. Reparations, supra note 30, paras. 38 and 39.