20 pensions owed and unpaid from 1993 to 2002. In this regard, the Commission emphasized in the application that, in the entire proceeding before it, "the State only referred to the budgetary constraints that prevented it from complying with the payment of the amounts owed to the victims”. Moreover, as the Court mentioned that “after adopting the report on merits of the Commission [in the year 2006, that is, after the adjustment of the pensions from 2002 to 2005, the State] requested a total of six extensions to refer the case to the Court, on the ground that the State was adopting important measures, at the domestic level, to pay the amounts owed to the victims of the case at hand.”40 55. Nevertheless, during the processing of the case before this Court, the State changed its defense and alleged that said judgments did not order the payment of the pensions owed and unpaid from 1993 to 2002, but that said obligation resulted as of January 2005, when such payment was judicially ordered in the enforcement procedure that is still pending. According to the State, “a simple reading of the judgment of the Superior Court [of December 14, 1993upheld by the judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal of 1997] is sufficient to note that such ruling does not order the State to pay any amount owed. The ruling just orders the State to pay to the petitioners the so-called “pegged” remunerations, which the State complied with as of November 2002. Moreover, the State indicated that “the second judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal [dated January 26, 2001] does not refer either to the payment of any owed amount, [since] it does not add any provision to the first one [...] but it only insists on its enforcement". The State emphasized that the alleged victims initiated the procedure to enforce the judicial decisions “after the delivery of the second judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal” and that the issuance of Order Nº 63 of January 24, 2005, which orders the payment of the pensions owed and unpaid (supra para. 50) “was necessary [...] since the judgments of the Constitutional Tribunal [...] did not [...] order such payment". 56. The State defended this change of position by pointing out that: [w]hen the Peruvian State put forwards its proposals to reach a friendly settlement [before the Inter-American Commission], it did it without making an in-depth analysis of the facts and the right invoked by the petitioners; nevertheless, when it was subpoenaed by the […] Court, as an entity that must protect the entire population and guarantee the rights of all its citizens and considering that the impact [of the payment in question of this case] is, at least, of 75 million dollars, the State made a multi-disciplinary analysis of the legal issue and of the proceedings before the supranational courts and it came to the conclusion that [the judgments in question do not contain an order to pay the amounts owed and unpaid from April 1993 to October 2002]”. 40 The requests for extensions made by the Peruvian State have been as follows: by means of Notes Nº 7-5-M/081 and 7-5-M/082, received by the Commission on of February 22, 2007, the State requested an extension “ to continue with the detailed analysis of a complex issue considering the financial and legal consequences within the legal framework in force and to present an adequate proposal for the payment to the discharged and retired employees of CGR, in accordance with the recommendations [made by the Commission in its] report on merits” of Article 50. The Commission granted a two-month extension. By means of Note N° 7-5M/196, presented on April 27, 2007 the State “requested a 60-day additional extension [to present an] adequate proposal to comply with the recommendations made” by the Commission in its report of Article 50". The IACHR granted a twomonth additional extension. By means of Note N° 7-5-M/274, presented on June 25, 2007, the State requested an extension of 90 days, which was granted by the Commission. By means of Note N° 7-5M/379 of September 4, 2007 the State requested another extension and the IACHR established a time limit until September 11, 2007. By means of Note N° 7-5-M/425 of September 26, 2007 the State requested a new extension to comply with the Commission’s recommendations and the IACHR granted a three-month additional extension. Finally, by means of Note N° 7-5-M/608 of December 26, 2007 the State requested and the Commission granted, another three-month additional extension.