96. The first one is connected to the discrepancy between the parties on whether the judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on October 25, 1993 has been effectively enforced. While the petitioners state that it has not been complied with to this day, the State has argued that SUNAT has been paying the alleged victims their adjusted pensions since 2003. 97. The Commission considers that, given the circumstances of this case, it is not competent nor does it have elements to make a pronouncement on the correct compliance modality for the judgment in question or on the issues that are still being internally debated. To the effect of this Report, the Commission highlights that there is no controversy between the parties around the fact that after more than 23 years since the court judgment, the execution process is still open internally; the fundamental debates about its implementation have not been settled yet, and this issue will have to be analyzed in the light of the relevant provisions in the Convention, in particular, the right to get judicial remedies enforced, the guarantee of a reasonable term in the judgment execution process and the impact of this analysis on the right to private property. 98. The second point is connected to the alleged victims in this case. In that respect, the IACHR notes the fact that the petitioners alleged that at the time of the events of the case, there were 703 members in ANCEJUB-SUNAT. The Commission has observed that in the execution process there have been debates about who the beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993 should be. Taking into account that this issue is still subject to expert opinions and reports internally, and that after 23 years the State has not been able to solve it, the Commission deems it reasonable to consider the 703 individuals identified by the petitioners in their initial claim, who were included in Admissibility Report No. 21/09, as the alleged victims in the case, without prejudice to applicable determinations at the time of implementation of the recommendations. B. Right to judicial guarantees, private property and judicial protection (Articles 8.1133, 21.1134 and 25.2.c)135 of the American Convention, vis-a-vis Article 1.1 of the same legal instrument) 1. General considerations regarding effective judicial protection and compliance with internal judgments 99. The Inter-American Court has pointed out that one of the components of the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American Convention is that States "[have an obligation to establish by law, and] ensure the application of effective remedies and guarantees of due process before the competent authorities."136 This is to effectively protect declared or recognized rights from acts that violate fundamental rights. 137 For its part, the IACHR has maintained that "if 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." 138 133 Article 8.1: Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. 134 Article 21.1: Everyone has the right to the use and enjoyment of his property. The law may subordinate such use and enjoyment to the interest of society. 135 granted. Article 25.2.c): The States Parties undertake to ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when 136 I/A Court HR. 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. 137 I/A Court HR. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, par. 104. 138 IACHR, Case 12.357, Application to the I/A Court H.R., Members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru, April 1, 2008, par. 52. 20