113. In conclusion, the Commission considers that in this case it has been proven that, regarding the judgment execution process, the Judiciary in Peru has not implemented the necessary measures to resolve fundamental aspects, such as compliance authorities, judgment beneficiaries, net worth implications of the pension amounts, and accrued amounts not received by the beneficiaries for a period of time comprising many years, in order to comply with a court decision in favor of a group of pensioners. The abovementioned aspects are still under debate even to this day, subject to several expert reviews and reports, which have not received final approval from the judicial authorities. To that we have to add that during that period of time the alleged victims had to assume additional financial burdens, such as payment of expert fees and the costs of litigating for more than two decades seeking enforcement of a favorable judgment. 114. Given the abovementioned points, the Commission considers that 23 years after the first court judgment in favor of the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT, the State remains in violation of their right to effective judicial protection in the event of failure to execute a final judgment in favor of the petitioners, as well as lack of effectiveness of the judicial mechanisms, which were activated later to achieve compliance. This situation rendered these individuals defenseless and in a state of judicial uncertainty that hinders enjoyment and adequate restitution of their rights recognized by the competent authorities --a status that remains the same to this date. 115. Consequently, the IACHR concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the rights established in Articles 25.1 and 25.2 c) of the American Convention, in connection with the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same legal instrument, against the individuals identified in the only Annex to this Report. 116. Additionally, and taking into account the abovementioned considerations, the Commission considers that the case of the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT is one more example of an overall structural issue that consists in noncompliance with court judgments. This situation is made even worse due to a common practice by which the judicial authorities in charge of the execution of these judgments do not take the necessary measures to resolve fundamental debates about the implementation of the judgments, nor does it use mechanisms to coercively ensure enforcement, thus materializing the right to effective judicial protection. The Commission highlights that despite being aware of this issue, the State has failed to adopt the necessary overall measures to remediate this situation and prevent its reiteration. Consequently, the Commission considers that the State is also responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the American Convention. 4. Reasonable term for execution of internal court judgments 117. Article 8.1 of the American Convention establishes that courts should decide in cases subjected to their competence within a reasonable term, as one of the elements of due process. In that sense, an extended delay may constitute, in itself, a violation of judicial guarantees159. Even though the IACHR and the Court have made extensive pronouncements about reasonable terms in criminal processes, this provision may also apply to the execution of a final and binding court judgment. 118. This has been reflected in the European Court jurisprudence, establishing that an unjustified delay in the execution of a court judgment can constitute a violation to the right to have a legal process resolved in a reasonable term160. The European Court emphasized that in no case shall the delay in the execution of a final and binding court judgment “compromise the essence of the laws that consecrate the right [to due process]”161. 159 I/A Court HR. Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas vs. Peru. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No.137, par. 166; Case of Gómez Palomino vs. Peru. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 22, 2005. Series C No. 136, par. 85; and Case of the Moiwana Community vs. Surinam. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, par. 160. 160 ECHR, Hornsby vs. Greek. Judgment of March 19, 1997, par. 40. 161 ECHR, Di Pede vs. Italy. Judgment of September 26, 1996, par. 16. 24