201. The State also asked the Court to consider the argument that the reparations ordered in the instant case could be held as “debilitating,” that is, “reparations that, because of their magnitude, would substantially impair the States’ ability to perform their functions.”444 It therefore asked the Court to consider the impact on national wealth of an order in this case, in view of the State’s financial capacity. 202. Moreover, during the public hearing and on the basis of the opinion delivered by expert witness Jorge Fantuzzi,445 the State objected to the use of the maximum conventional interest rate in calculating the updated amounts of the payment assessments submitted by the representatives. 203. In the case at hand, the Court concluded that the State had violated the right to judicial protection by failing to guarantee full execution, free of unjustified delays, of the judgments delivered in the thirteen procedures against the municipalities of Chañaral, Chanco, Parral, Vallenar, Pelluhue and Cauquenes. Thus, the Court held that, even though over twenty-five years had passed since the final judgments were handed down in the different processes, the amounts determined in the final judgments had not been paid in the thirteen cases covered herein, even though partial payments had been made in the processes Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of de Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994; Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993; Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,071-1992; Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992; Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992 and Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993. 204. The State asked that, if the Court were to order enforcement of the judgments, the amounts to be paid should necessarily be determined by each of the particular courts that delivered the judgments, because otherwise, the Court would be sitting as a “fourth instance”. The Court has repeatedly stressed on this point that the principle of complementarity informs the entire interAmerican system of human rights, which is, as the Preamble of the American Convention states, “reinforcing or complementing the protection provided by the domestic law of the American states.”446 This is why the system of protection instituted by the American Convention does not replace national jurisdictions, but complements them.447 205. Thus, in view of the violations found in this judgment, the time that has passed, the status of the victims as a vulnerable population because of their age, and the additional length of time it could take to initiate new processes for enforcement of the judgments, and in order for the victims to receive redress promptly,448 the Court elects to order the State to grant the compensation ordered in this judgment directly to each and every one of the victims in the instant case. Indeed, this Court has already emphasized that a delay in executing measures of reparation 444 Cf. Expert statement delivered before a public attestor by Martins Paparinskis, May 24, 2021 (evidence file, folios 18781 to 18833). 445 Cf. Statement by expert witness Jorge Fantuzzi Majlis delivered on May 31, 2021, at the hearing before the Inter-American Court. The written text of this expert statement was added to the evidence file, folios 18769 to 18780. 446 Cf. Case of Las Palmeras v. Colombia. Merits. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 33, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 137. 447 Cf. Case of Peasant Community of Santa Barbara v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 1, 2015. Series C No. 299, para. 159, and Case of Vera Rojas et al. v. Chile, supra, para. 138. 448 Cf. Case of Órdenes Guerra et al. v. Chile. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 29, 2018. Series C No. 372, para. 119. 67