Chapter ii  Rights of Access to Justice and Equality in the Administration of Justice 41 of appeal are only guaranteed by Article 14 in the context of having a right to have one’s conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal (See also 10.1). The European Court of Human Rights also reiterated that Article 6 of the ECHR does not compel States Parties to set up courts of appeal or of cassation. Where such courts do exist, however, the European Court has clarified that Article 6 must be complied with in that it guarantees to litigants an effective right of access to the courts (See also chapter 10).121 For non-criminal proceedings, the right of access only applies to first instance procedures, i.e., there is no entitlement to appeal a decision in civil proceedings (See also chapter 10),122 unless there is an inequality in access to appeal or other subsequent procedures that would result in an inequality before the law (See also 2.2). The execution of a judgment given by any court is an integral part of the trial for the purposes of Article 6.123 Therefore, the right to the execution of judicial decisions both in criminal and in civil proceeding represents a fundamental aspect of the right of access to court. In Burdov v Russia, for example, the European Court of Human Rights held that a State may not cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honoring a judgment debt.124 In other words, parties to legal proceedings should not be prevented from benefiting from the success of litigation on the ground of alleged financial difficulties experienced by the State.125 A delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances, such as situations where a significant number of legal suits claiming large sums of money are lodged and call for a change in the law.126 However, the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right to the execution of judgment.127 It would be illusory if a domestic legal system allowed an individual to bring a civil action before a court without ensuring that the case would be determined by a final decision in the judicial proceedings.128 The same principle applies in criminal cases, whereby the guarantees afforded by Article 6 would be illusory if the domestic legal or administrative system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to acquit to remain inoperative to the detriment of the person acquitted.129 121 See, for example, Dunayev v Russia [2007] ECHR 404, para 34; Kozlica v Croatia [2006] ECHR 923, para 32. 122 I. P. v Finland, HRC Communication 450/1991, UN Doc CCPR/C/48/D/450/1991 (1993), para 6.2. 123 Assanidze v Georgia [2004] ECHR 140, para 181; Hornsby v Greece [1997] ECHR 15, para 40 in fine; Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2006] ECHR 907, para 38 in fine. 124 Burdov v Russia [2002] ECHR 432, para 35. 125 Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2006] ECHR 907, paras 39–42 in fine. 126 Multiplex v Croatia [2003] ECHR 351, para 52; Pejaković and Others v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2007] ECHR 1115, para 27; Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2006] ECHR 907, para 35, 43. 127 Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2006] ECHR 907, para 39; Kutić v Croatia [2002] ECHR 297, para 32; Aćimović v Croatia [2003] ECHR 481, para 36; Multiplex v Croatia [2003] ECHR 351, para 48; Kudić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2008] ECHR 1658, para 20. 128 Kutić v Croatia [2002] ECHR 297, para 25; Jasiūnienė v Lithuania [2003] ECHR 122, para 27; Burdov v Russia [2002] ECHR 432, para 34; Jeličić v Bosnia and Herzegovina [2006] ECHR 907, para 38; Multiplex v Croatia [2003] ECHR 351, para 45. 129 Assanidze v Georgia [2004] ECHR 140, para 182.