44 but also of the rule of law itself in a democratic society, in the terms of the Convention.”60 91. In the context of the simple, prompt and effective remedies established in the provision we are examining, this Court has maintained that the procedural remedy of amparo has the necessary characteristics for the effective protection of the fundamental rights61; in other words, it is simple and brief. According to the procedure established for remedies of amparo in Peru’s Habeas Corpus and Amparo Law No. 23,506, this should be summary and prompt, because it sets peremptory and maximum periods of 20 days for the corresponding courts to deliver their decisions in each of the two instances that hear this matter. In this case, the three alleged victims filed their applications for amparo on July 25 and August 1, 1997, and both were rejected in appeal by the Temporary Commercial Public Law Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice on February 9, 1998 (supra 56.27); in other words, more than six months after they were filed. Also, Article 41 of the Constitutional Court’s statute establishes the possibility of filing an appeal after execution of judgment before the Constitutional Court against “the decisions of the Supreme Court or the instance established by law that have denied remedies of habeas corpus, amparo, habeas data and an action seeking compliance (acción de cumplimiento)” and this must be resolved within a maximum period of 20 days. Accordingly, the dismissed justices filed the corresponding appeals after execution of judgment, and these were decided confirming the decision of the two previous instances on July 10 and 16, 1998, respectively. 92. It is also worth underlining that, although the decisions of the Constitutional Court that we are discussing were adopted on July 10 and 16, 1998, they were published in the official gazette, El Peruano, the following September 25 (supra 56.27), even though Article 42 of Law No. 23,506 establishes that “[o]nce they have been agreed and made executable, all final decision awarded in applications for [... a]mparo shall be published within the following 15 days in the official gazette, El Peruano.” 93. In the light of the criteria that this Court has established on the issue and considering the concept of reasonable time in judicial proceedings62, it may be said that the procedure followed before the various instances that heard the applications for amparo in this case exceeded the principle of a reasonable time limit established in the American Convention. In this Court’s opinion, applications for amparo are illusory and ineffective if, when processing them, there is an unjustifiable delay in the decision63. Peru’s domestic legislation itself adopted this criterion when it established brief and peremptory time limits for processing the application for 60 Cf. Bámaca Velásquez case, supra note 4, para. 191; Cantoral Benavides case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 163; Durand and Ugarte case, supra note 54, para 101; Caso Villagrán Morales et al. (“Street Children” case). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 234; Cesti Hurtado case, supra note 59, para. 121; Castillo Petruzzi et al. case, supra note 56, para. 184; Paniagua Morales et al. case, supra note 46, para. 164; Blake case. Judgment of January 24, 1998. Series C No. 36, para. 102; Suárez Rosero case, Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C No. 35, para. 65; an Castillo Páez case, Judgment of November 3, 1997. Series C No. 34, para. 82. 61 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 45, para. 23. 62 Cf. Paniagua Morales et al. case , supra note 46, para. 152. 63 Cf. Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Articles 27.2, 25 and 8, American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 45, para. 24.