17 Supreme Decree No. 036-93-EF, the time limit had not expired, but that this norm was not incompatible with the State’s Constitution. The Association filed an ‘extraordinary appeal’ (appeal after execution of the judgment) against this decision before the Constitutional Court. In a judgment of October 21, 1997, the Constitutional Court reversed the judgment delivered by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic and confirmed the decision issued by the First Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima of December 14, 1993. Consequently, it established that “the right to an adjustable pension of Social Security is guaranteed for all the beneficiaries of the Public Administration, whose exercise is enshrined in the Constitution, is unalienable and any provision contrary to it is null and void.”27 Furthermore, it emphasized that the “payment of the pensions constitutes an ongoing, periodic and continuing act and that said act has been repeatedly violated, in each new opportunity, by the defendant entity.”28 46. On December 10, 1997 the Final Judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of Perú was notified. As from that, the First Transitional Corporative Public Law Court ordered, on more than one occasion, MEF and the Comptroller’s Office to comply with the rulings in the judgment of the Constitutional Court.29 On October 6, 1998, the MEF Public Prosecutor requested said Court to annul the order considering that it did not correspond to MEF, but rather to CGR, to comply with the decisions of the Constitutional Court. On October 16, 1998, the Public Law Court declared the MEF Public Prosecutor’s request inadmissible and the prosecutor filed an appeal. Moreover, on January 5, 1999, CGR indicated that it was negotiating with MEF the resources with which to make the payment. Finally, by means of Order of February 12, 1999 and in consideration of the lack of suitability of the action for Amparo to solve the case, the Transitional Corporative Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima issued a ruling annulling the decision of October 16, 1998, and declaring any measures taken to execute it to be null and void, “[safeguarding the right of the Association [...] in order for it to enforce the right through the appropriate means.”30 47. Considering this new ruling, on May 27, 1999 the Association filed a second action for amparo with the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic asking: 1) “the inapplicability to the case of Order dated February 12, 1999 "; 2) “that the case be returned to the stage of execution of judgment” and 3) “the payment of expenses and costs of the proceeding.”31 On May 5, 2000, said Chamber confirmed the decision of February 12, 1999 and, consequently, on May 27, 2000, the Association filed an appeal (after execution of judgment) before the Constitutional Court contesting this decision. 48. In a ruling of January 26, 2001, the Constitutional Court reversed the 27 Judgment of October 21, 1997 of the Constitutional Court of Perú (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix 4.3, volumen 6, pages 1663, reason N°4). 28 Judgment of October 21, 1997 of the Constitutional Tribunal of Perú, supra note 27 (page 1663, ground Nº 5). 29 Orders of June 17, July 15 and December 14, 1998 of the First Transitional Corporative Public Law Court of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix 4.4, volume 6, pages 1678-1679, and 1720 ). 30 Order of February 12, 1999 of the First Transitional Corporative Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix 4.5, volumen 6, pages 1681-1682). 31 Application for amparo filed by the alleged victims before the President of the Transitional Corporative Public Law Chamber (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix N° 4.6, volume 6, pages 1685-1715).