the thirteen trials, and to do so on its own motion rather than expecting the claimants to push for it by going through the entire administrative process necessary to comply with the courts’ orders.385 155. However, the principle that it was the State’s responsibility to initiate proceedings for enforcing labor judgments was not readily accepted by national case law at the time of the facts of this case, as expert witness Thayer himself explained in his statement.386 Indeed, the case Abraza Farías et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993, was finally declared null and void due to inaction by the plaintiffs.387 The requirement for the parties to bring about compliance therefore stood as a barrier to enforcement of a judgment against the State. Expert witness Francisco Agüero Vargas explained, “[t]he execution of a conviction against the public administration faces all the usual problems of compliance and enforcement of convictions, and it is even worse when the public interest is compromised and when compliance depends on the very party that was found guilty.”388 156. Thus, the need for the claimant to move the case forward in a proceeding where the forms of compliance consist entirely of actions that can be executed only by the administration itself, as in the instant case, do not allow for due protection of the rights upheld at trial. This difficulty in enforcing the right to payment of the amounts owed can be clearly seen in this specific case in the fact that in five of the thirteen procedures comprising the case,389 the attempt to employ numerous mechanisms provided by domestic law and the active pursuit of the process failed to bring about full payment of the amounts owed. Therefore, the Court will now examine the alleged ineffectiveness of the mechanisms available in laws on the books at the time of the facts to guarantee compliance with payment of the debts, due to privileges enjoyed by the State in processes for enforcing judgment and the interpretation of municipal autonomy. B.2.3. The effectiveness of means to ensure the payment of judicial rulings against the municipalities 157. This Court has emphasized that the effectiveness of a verdict depends on its enforcement, because the right to judicial protection would be illusory if a state’s domestic legal system were to allow a final binding decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party.390 The Court holds that, for this purpose, as part of the duty to guarantee effective means and mechanisms for executing final, non-appealable decisions, “follow-up and enforcement mechanisms must be established and be available and accessible in practice […] [with diverse measures to promote enforcement, including] sanctions, against those who interfere with the implementation of rights 385 Expert statement delivered before a public attestor by Luis Eduardo Thayer, May 24, 2021 (evidence file, folio 18741 and 18742). 386 Cf. Expert statement delivered before a public attestor by Luis Eduardo Thayer, May 24, 2021 (evidence file, folio 18745). 387 Cf. Order by the court of Chanco, October 9, 2014, in the process of Abarza Farías v. Chanco, Docket No. 217-1993 (evidence file, folio 15698). 388 Expert statement delivered before a public attestor by Francisco Agüero Vargas, May 27, 2021 (evidence file, folio 19097). 389 The processes of (1) Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993; (2) Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4-071-1992; (3) Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992; (4) Salazar Aravena v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992 and (5) Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993. 390 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No. 144, para. 219, and Case of Carvajal Carvajal et al. v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of March 26, 2021. Series C No. 423, para. 210. 54