final and binding court judgment favorable to their petition; and v) to date, the execution of said judgments has not been enforced, given that the concrete property effects of the judgment issued on October 25, 1993 have not been determined. Failure to determine those effects has generated a situation of uncertainty regarding the amounts pursuant to the judgment that were received or should have been received by the victims. 130. In conclusion, the Commission considers that the Peruvian State is responsible for the violation of the right to private property set forth in Article 21 of the American Convention referring to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same legal instrument, against the individuals identified in the only Annex to this Report. VI. CONCLUSIONS 131. Based on the factual and legal considerations presented throughout this Substantial Report, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the State of Peru is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial guarantees, private property and judicial protection, established in Articles 8.1, 21, 25.1 and 25.2.c) of the American Convention, referring to the obligations established in Article 1.1 of the same legal instrument, against the individuals identified in the only Annex to this Report. Furthermore, the Commission concludes that the State has failed to comply with the obligations established in Article 2 of the same legal instrument. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 132. Based on the preceding conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS THE PERUVIAN STATE TO, 1. Comply as soon as possible with court judgments issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on October 25, 1993, and by the Constitutional Court on June 25, 1996, and May 10, 2001. This entails immediate adoption on the part of the Peruvian State of any necessary measures to effect the payment of pensions to the individuals identified in the only Annex herein, under the terms in which the benefit was legally recognized in Court, i.e., under the scheme set forth as per Decree Law 20530. The previous statement includes the payment of any amounts the petitioners failed to receive from the moment of their retirement to the date when the payment is made effective. Taking into account how ineffective the court judgment execution process has been for more than 23 years, and how urgent enforcement of the decision is, given the advanced age of the victims, the Commission urges the State to immediately implement an expeditious mechanism so that in the briefest possible term the property effects of the favorable judgment are established and payment is made effective without any further delays or hindrances. 2. Entirely repair the violations detailed in this Report, including due compensation for material and immaterial damages caused. This reparation should not only be implemented in the case of members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT who are still alive, but also in the case of those who have passed away waiting for compliance with their favorable judgment. In the latter case, the State shall make the reparation effective for their family members. 3. Adopt measures of a legal nature, or other nature, that may be necessary to avoid reiteration of the violations listed in this Report. To that end, the State shall order measures so as to: i) Ensure that State bodies or agencies comply with court judgments recognizing pension rights for former workers; ii) Ensure that court judgment execution processes are in line with conventional standards to make them simple and expeditious; and iii) Ensure that judicial authorities dealing with these processes are legally empowered and put the necessary coercive mechanisms in practice in order to guarantee compliance and enforcement of court judgments. 27