59 130. Subsequent to their delivery, the judgments were not complied with, no arrangement was made to pay the amounts corresponding to the proportion of the pensions owed. The SBS attributed the responsibility to the MEF and vice versa. 131. However, the SBS did comply with the judgments in favor of the five pensioners when it paid them the difference in the amount of the pensions that corresponded to them as follows: to Messrs. Torres Benvenuto, Mujica RuizHuidobro, Álvarez Hernández and Gamarra Ferreyra, only for September and October 1992, while Mr. Bartra Vásquez was paid the difference for April to October 1992. These payments were made by judicial deposits in favor of the five pensioners. 132. In light of the foregoing, the Court considers that the first stage does not merit any consideration because, during this period, the amounts that the pensioners should receive as an equalized pension were paid, in accordance with the rulings of the domestic courts. b) Second stage 133. The second stage merits special attention, since it was as of November 1992 that the SBS attributed the responsibility for payment to the MEF and vice versa. Furthermore, the State affirms that, owing to the application of article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792, which made the MEF responsible for the “collection of the contributions and the payment of the pensions, remunerations or similar that it would have corresponded to the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance to pay to its pensioners, retirees and those who have ceased to work for it, who are covered by the regime of Decree Law No. 20530”, the five pensioners should have filed a complaint not only against the SBS but also the MEF and that, consequently, the judgments were complied with, because the respondent party, that is the SBS, complied with them to the extent of its responsibility. 134. In view of the foregoing, it is important to indicate that, at the stage of execution of the judgment on amparo and in a decision of November 3, 1994, the Nineteenth Civil Court of Lima, ordered, with regard to Carlos Torres Benvenuto, that the SBS should “issue the necessary administrative decision or decisions to restore the right of the plaintiff to receive remunerations and repayments in accordance with the Supreme Judgment [...] and that the [MEF], through its General Administration Office [should] comply by making the required payments effective.” In this decision, the court also indicated that there had been a lack of good faith, because “both entities, which are simultaneously and reciprocally obligated have mutually attributed to each other the responsibility for complying with the ruling” without contributing “any solution to compliance with the said ruling.” 135. With regard to the State’s position that the MEF should have been cited, the Court dismisses this argument and indicates that, when, in 1995, the SBS issued the corresponding decisions that decided to equalize the reduced pensions of the alleged victims, in the second article of these decisions it stipulated: “Transmit this decision and appendix to the Ministry of Economy and Finance for the pertinent purposes.” Furthermore, the judicial rulings were published in the Official Gazette El Peruano, so that the MEF could not allege that it was unaware of the judgments to justify its failure to comply with them. 136. It is important to indicate that: