54 to the SBS, because the Supreme Court had so ordered and that, even if it had been the obligation of the MEF, the SBS had not transferred the necessary resources and contributions so that it could make such payments as ordered by Decree Law No. 25792; b) The five pensioners filed a criminal complaint against the State agents responsible for non-compliance with the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice, so that they would be investigated and punished for noncompliance. However, “the criminal recourses were ineffective to remedy the right of the pensioners to have the judgments in their favor complied with; therefore the right to effective judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention was violated”; c) Subsequently, “the procedural measure of the compliance proceeding was definitively and unsuccessfully exhausted with the resulting judgment of the Constitutional Court, which was equally useless to restore to the pensioners the enjoyment of the human rights of which they had been deprived.” Moreover, on June 17, 1997, the Peruvian Ombudsman issued a decision requiring the SBS and the MEF to comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court; d) The reservation stipulated by the SBS in the five decisions issued on March 12, 2002, according to which it would have the power to reclaim certain sums from the pensioners, should the Inter-American Court order the payment of lower amounts than those that had been paid, has caused uncertainty for the alleged victims, because they do not have peace of mind to dispose of the amounts that they were paid; e) For eight years, the State failed to comply with the final judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice in 1994 and the Constitutional Court between 1998 and 2000, ordering the SBS to restore to the five pensioners their right to enjoy a progressively equalized pension, in accordance with the pension regime governed by Decree Law No. 20530; in other words, adjusting it according to the salary of the active SBS official who occupied the same or a similar function to that of the pensioner until he retired; f) The State’s arguments have attempted to justify non-compliance with the judgments by indicating their divergence with the judicial decisions, because, according to the State, they recognize rights unduly and contain erroneous and contradictory interpretations; g) In this case, non-compliance with the judgments is very serious, because “it represents a defiance of justice by the Peruvian Executive, which, based on its discrepancies and disagreements with the adopted decisions, has disregarded and continues disregarding final judgments of the highest courts of Peru.” The judges’ decisions should be called into question through institutional procedures and not by de facto methods, such as disobedience and rebellion by the Executive itself; and h) It is irrelevant whether the violation of the right to effective judicial protection was due to the act or omission of a superintendency or a ministry. The State cannot impose on its citizens the burden of addressing themselves