3 7. On September 27, 1999, the Commission adopted Report No. 89/99, in which it declared the case admissible and, on October 18, 1999, it made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. 8. On March 5, 2001, in accordance with Article 50 of the Convention, the Commission adopted Report No. 23/01, in which it recommended the State: 1. To make adequate reparation to Messrs. Torres Benvenuto, Mujica RuizHuidobro, Álvarez Hernández and Bartra Vásquez, and to the next of kin of Mr. Gamarra Ferreyra, in accordance with Article 63 of the American Convention, including both the pecuniary and the non-pecuniary aspects, for the violations of their human rights and, in particular, 2. To pay forthwith to Messrs. Torres Benvenuto, Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Álvarez Hernández and Bartra Vásquez, and to the next of kin of Mr. Gamarra Ferreyra, the difference in the amount of the equalized pensions that it has failed to pay them from November 1992 to the present. In order to calculate this difference, the State should take into consideration the amount of the pensions that it has been paying them, compared with the amount of the pensions that it should have paid them, based, as explained previously, on the acquired right of the victims to receive a retirement pension progressively equalized with the salary of the employee of the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance, who currently occupies the same position or a similar function to that of the said persons at the date of their retirement. 3. Thereafter, to pay to Messrs. Torres Benvenuto, Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Álvarez Hernández and Bartra Vásquez, and to the next of kin of Mr. Gamarra Ferreyra, an equalized pension calculated according to the parameters used up until August 1992; in other words, progressively equalized with the salary of the employee of the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance who currently occupies the same position or a similar function to that of the said persons at the date of their retirement. 4. To annul and cause to terminate retroactively the effects of Article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792 of October 23, 1992. 5. To conduct a complete, impartial and effective investigation into the facts in order to establish responsibilities for non-compliance with the said judgments delivered, in 1994, by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and, in July 1998, by the Constitutional Court; and, using criminal, administrative or other appropriate procedures, to ensure that those responsible receive the pertinent punishments that correspond to the gravity of the said violations. 9. On March 9, 2001, the Commission transmitted this report to the State and granted it a period of two months to comply with the recommendations. On May 31, 2001, the State requested an extension of four months, as of that day, to comply with the recommendations; this was granted. On May 14, September 10 and 27, 2001, the State informed the Commission of the actions it was taking to comply with the said recommendations. 10. On October 1, 2001, the State requested the Commission to agree to a further extension of two months to comply with the recommendations; this was granted the following day, to run from October 1, 2001. 11. In a communication of October 11, 2001, CEDAL indicated that it joined the Center for Justice and International Law (hereinafter “CEJIL”) as a co-petitioner in this case. 12. On December 3, 2001, the Commission decided to submit the case to the jurisdiction of the Court.