2 2. The Commissioned filed the application based on Article 51 of the American Convention, for the Court to decide whether the State had violated Articles 21 (Right to Property), 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) and 26 (Progressive Development) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects) thereof, owing to the modification in the pension regime that Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica RuizHuidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (hereinafter “the alleged victims”, “the five pensioners” or “the pensioners”) had been enjoying, in accordance with the Peruvian legislation up until 1992, and to non-compliance with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Peru “that ordered the organs of the Peruvian State to pay the pensioners a pension in an amount calculated as established in the legislation in force when they began to enjoy a determined pension regime.” 3. Furthermore, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to grant compensation for the non-pecuniary damage caused to the alleged victims, and to comply with the provisions of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru of May 2, June 28, September 1 and 19, and October 10, 1994, and those of the Constitutional Court of Peru of July 9, 1998, August 3 and December 21, 2000, so that the alleged victims and their next of kin would receive the differences in the amount of their pensions that had not been paid since November 1992, together with the respective interest, and also that they continue to be paid an equalized amount for their pensions. The Commission also requested the Court to order the State to annul and terminate, retroactively, the effects of article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792 of October 23, 1992. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to investigate the facts, to establish responsibilities for the violation of human rights committed in this case, and to condemn the State to pay the costs and expenses incurred by processing the case in the internal jurisdiction and before the inter-American system. II COMPETENCE 4. Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. Therefore, the Court is competent to hear this case according to Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On February 1, 1998, Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Sara Castro, Mr. Gamarra’s widow, and also the Human Rights Program of the Centro de Asesoría Laboral of Peru (hereinafter “CEDAL”) and the Association for Human Rights (APRODEH), submitted a petition to the Inter-American Commission. This petition was expanded by the last two organizations on June 3, 1998. 6. On July 16, 1998, the Commission proceeded to open the case as No. 12,034.