violation of the right to judicial protection, the Court must first recall the principal standards it has already developed on this subject, including the reinforced duties that need to be considered in view of the advanced age of the alleged victims in this case; second, examine the operation of the process for execution of judgments in labor disputes; and third, study the effectiveness of procedures available when municipalities are convicted at court, specifically examining the means available for enforcing payment of municipal debts. B.2.1. The right to Judicial Protection, particularly for vulnerable older adults 142. Article 25 of the American Convention recognizes the right to judicial protection. The Court has held that two specific State obligations derive from this right. The first is the obligation to establish by law and to ensure the due application of effective remedies before the competent authorities, protecting all persons subject to their jurisdiction against acts that violate their fundamental rights, or making it possible to determine their rights and obligations.368 The second is the obligation to ensure the means to execute the respective decisions and final judgments delivered by those competent authorities, so that the rights that have been declared or recognized are truly protected.369 Thus, Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention establishes the right to have competent authorities enforce such remedies when granted.370 143. On the subject of enforcement of the judgments, this Court had held that state responsibility does not end when the competent authorities deliver a decision or verdict, but also requires the state to guarantee effective means and mechanisms for executing final decisions, so that declared rights are truly protected.371 This Court has also stated that the effectiveness of a judgment depends on its execution, and this process should lead to the materialization of the protection of the right recognized in the judicial ruling, by the proper application of this ruling.372 The Court has also found that if the ruling is to be fully effective, execution must be complete, perfect, comprehensive, and without delay.373 144. Likewise, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the enforcement procedures be accessible to the parties, without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, (5) Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992 (evidence file, folios 17617 to 17622) and (6) Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993 (evidence file, folios 14377 to 14379). 368 Cf. Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 237, and Case of Guzmán Albarracín et al. v. Paraguay. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of August 19, 2021. Series C No. 429, para. 148. 369 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Competence. Judgment of November 28, 2003. Series C No. 104, para. 79, and Case of Casa Nina v. Peru, supra, para. 116. 370 Cf. Case of Muelle Flores v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 6, 2019. Series C No. 375, para. 124, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 3, 2021, Series C No. 425, para. 95. 371 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9787 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 24; Case of the “Street Children” (Villagrán Morales et al.) v. Guatemala. Merits. Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, par. 237, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, par. 148. 372 Cf. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, supra, para. 73, and Case of Ríos Avalos et al. v. Paraguay, supra, para. 157. 373 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 105, and Case of Moya Solís v. Peru, supra, para. 95. 50