106. Likewise, the principle of effective judicial protection requires that the implementation procedures be accessible to the parties, without hindrance or undue delay in order to quickly, simply, and comprehensively satisfy their purpose.86 Additionally, the provisions governing the independence of the judicial order must be made in an appropriate way so as to ensure the timely execution of the judgments without any interference by other branches of government87 and guarantee the binding and obligatory nature of the decisions of last resort. 88 The Court considers that in a system based on the principle of rule of law, all public authorities, within the framework of their jurisdiction, must head to the judicial decisions and push forward the execution of these decisions without hindering the purpose and scope of the decision or unduly delaying its implementation. 89 107. In the present case, Mr. Mejía Idrovo filed, in 2001, an unconstitutionality motion that handled part of his claims by judgment of March 12, 2002, issued by the Constitutional Tribunal (supra para. 48 and 49). After the issuance of the ruling, said Tribunal addressed some communications to various State institutions, wherein it 90 requested a report regarding compliance with said resolution. In response to this, said institutions reported on the actions carried out in compliance, without objecting 91 to said requirement. It was not until the issuance of the new Constitution of 85 Cf. CtEDH, Case of Cocchiarella versus Italia (GC), n° 62361/00, Judgment of 29.03.2006, para. 89; CtEDH, Case of Gaglioneversus Italia, n° 45867/07, Judgment of 21.12.2010, para. 34. In light of the established jurisprudence of the ECtHR the delay in implementing the court decision may constitute a violation of the right to be tried within a reasonable time protected by Article 6 para. 1 of the ECHR and that the execution "should be considered part of the process for the purposes of Article 6.” Cf. Case of Hornsby versus Grecia, n° 18357/91, Judgment of 19.03.1997, para. 40. Cf. Case ofs Di Pede versus Italia and Zappia versus Italia, n°s15797/89 and 24295/94,of 26.09.1996, para. 16 and 20 respectively. "A delay in the execution of a decision can be justified in particular circumstances. However, in any Case of the delay may compromise the essence of the right protected by Article 6.” Cf. CtEDH, Case of Jasiūnienė versus Lithuania, n° 41510/98, Judgment of 6.03.2003, para. 27. 86 Cf. Opinion no.13 (2010) on the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, cit., conclusions, H), supra note 84. 87 Cf. Opinion no.13 (2010) on the role of judges in the enforcement of judicial decisions, cit., conclusions, F). Cf. tambien Matheus versus Francia, n° 62740/00, para. 58 and ss; Cabourdin versus France, nº 60796/00, Judgment of April 11, 2006, para. 28-30. 88 This means that their compliance is forced, and that if they are not obeyed voluntarily, may be coercively enforceable. 89 The European Court has established in the Case of Inmobiliare Saffi versus Italia: “In conclusion, while it may be accepted that Contracting States may, in exceptional circumstances and, as in this instance, by availing themselves of their margin of appreciation to control the use of property, intervene in proceedings for the enforcement of a judicial decision, the consequence of such intervention should not be that execution is prevented, invalidated or unduly delayed or, still less, that the substance of the decision is undermined.” Cf. Case of Inmobiliare Saffi versus Italia, n° 22774/93, Jugdment of 07.28.1999, para 74. 90 Cf. Official letters Nos, 576-TC-P, 573-TC-P, 574-TC-P of the Secretary General of the Constitutional Tribunal of July 12, 2002 addresed, respectively, to the Prosecutor General of the Republic, the Constitutional President of the Republic, the Miniter of National Defense (annexes to the application, appendix 2, tome III, fs. 1073, 1109, 1110). In this respect the Article 60 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court Records from January 7, 2002, states: “[in] the case of noncompliance with rulings of the Constitutional Court, the Plenary of the Court shall communicate the fact to the Attorney General to implement the provisions of Articles 251, 277 and others applicable to this case, in the Penal Code." 91 Cf. Official letter No, 2002-194-AJ-CCFFAA of the Chief of Joint Fores of the Armed Forces, addressed to the Office of the Constitutional Tribunal on July 22, 2002, Official letter No, 021130- MS-7-1 33