16 to the salary of the active Comptroller General of the Republic (hereinafter, “CGR”) employee performing the same or a similar function to the one he or she performed at the time of his or her retirement. The Eighth General and Transitory Provision of 1979 Political Constitution of Perú incorporated the system of adjusting the pensions of the State’s civil servants. This provision was subsequently developed by means of Act No. 23.495 of November 19, 1982. Nevertheless, Decree Law No. 25.597 was published on July 7, 1992. Such decree commissioned the Ministry of Economy and Finance (hereinafter, the "MEF”) to assume responsibility for the payment of the salaries, pensions, and similar expenses for which CGR was responsible, and eliminated the right of the members of the Association to continue receiving the adjusted and renewed pension they enjoyed under Decree Law No. 20.530.Furthermore, Supreme Decree No. 036-93-EF, of March 17, 1993, granted those receiving State pensioners a bonus for level of education, substituting the Annual Bonus for Occupational Training that the members of the Association received. The amount of such bonus was higher. In this way, as of April 1993, the alleged victims stopped receiving the payment of the pension amounts corresponding to that adjustment 44. To such end, on May 27, 1993, the Association filed an action for amparo against CGR and MEF with the Sixth Civil Court of Lima, requesting the Court to declare the non-applicability of said legal provisions, in favor of the members of the Association. On July 9, 1993, the Sixth Court of First Instance delivered a judgment23 declaring the application for amparo inadmissible considering, among other reasons, that the petitioners had not contested the application of Decree Law No. 25.597 at the appropriate time.24 The petitioners filed a motion to appeal with the First Specialized Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, which, by means of Order dated December 14, 1993, revoked the appealed decision and declared the complaint admissible, stating that Articles 9(c) and 13 of Decree Law Nº 25.597 and Article 5 of Supreme Decree Nº 036-93 EF did not apply to the members of the Association, and ordering: […] that [CGR] comply with the payment to the members of the plaintiff Association of the salaries, benefits, and bonuses received by the active employees of said Comptroller’s Office performing functions identical, similar, or equivalent to those that the discharged or retired employees performed.25 Therefore, the First Chamber concluded that in the case "the Comptroller [...] omitted an act of compulsory compliance.”26 45. Afterwards, the CGR filed an appeal for annulment with the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic. On October 3, 1994, the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic declared the decision of December 14, 1993, null and void and the application for amparo inadmissible, considering that the latter had been filed outside the legal time frame and that, regarding 23 Judgment of July 9, 1993 of the Sixth Court of First Instance of Lime (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix 4.1, volumen 6, pages 1651-1656). 24 Article 37 of the Act of Habeas Corpus and Amparo of December 8, 1982 provides that "The interested party has 60 days, following the damage caused, to exercise the writ of Amparo as long as the interested party, on that date, is able to exercise that right. If the interested party is not able to exercise such right within that period of time, the term shall run as from the moment the impediment is eliminated". 25 Judgment of December 14, 1993 of the First Special Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima (Records of Appendixes to the application, Appendix 4.2, volumen 6, page 1660). 26 Judgment of December 14, 1993 of the First Special Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, supra note 25 (page 1659).