53 decide that the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court were wrong when they delivered judgments against the State, and thereby recover what it has paid to the victims in accordance with the provisions of the said judgments”; h) To ensure that the alleged victims have legal certainty with regard to compliance with the judgments delivered in their favor in the domestic sphere, the Inter-American Court must decide that Peru must comply, unconditionally, with the final judgments of the Peruvian Supreme Court of Justice and Constitutional Court; i) Since the res judicata nature of the judgments in favor of the alleged victims delivered by the domestic courts is not in discussion, “and the Commission has not alleged that judicial guarantees were violated in the proceedings during which these judgments were delivered,” the principal purpose of the instant case is for the Court to decide on the State’s international responsibility for non-compliance with the firm and executable judgments in favor of the alleged victims delivered by the highest Peruvian courts: the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and the Peruvian Constitutional Court; and j) With regard to the allegations of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin concerning the ineffectiveness of the criminal recourses that some of the pensioners filed to try and obtain compliance with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, which violated the right to effective judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, it considers that “even though the said allegations were made by the petitioners in their original petition to the ICHR, the Commission did not determine the existence of such alleged violations either in its report on merits or in its application to the Court. However, they constitute additional legal criteria concerning the same facts that, based on the available evidence, were established by the Commission in its report on merits and in the application [. … T]he Commission considers that such arguments […] may be examined by the Court by virtue of the principle of iura novit curia”. The arguments of the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin 123. With regard to Article 25 of the Convention, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin indicated that: a) After March and September 1992, when the SBS reduced the pensions the alleged victims had been receiving, they filed applications for amparo against the SBS. This reduction represented “a de facto measure, outside the regular procedure during which the aggrieved party could have exercised his right to defense.” The Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected the arguments of the SBS and ordered it to restore the pension rights of the Decree Law No. 20530 regime, which, unconstitutionally, had been withdrawn from the alleged victims. The SBS reintegrated the nominal difference the five pensioners had failed to receive during September and October 1992 and refused to be responsible for the subsequent amounts, on the basis that, with the promulgation of Decree Law No. 25792, their obligation to be responsible for the payment of such pensions had been removed and that the MEF was responsible for paying them. The MEF alleged that the obligation to pay the pensions corresponded