an average pension of S/. 400.00 (400 Peruvian Nuevos Soles), which amounts to a third of the money needed to purchase a family’s basic basket of goods, and, therefore, affecting their access to a life with dignity. The petitioners added that the alleged victims were in an irreversible emotional state, aggravated by their age and by the fact that tens of beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993, have already died, some of them due to extreme poverty which prevented them from having access to “appropriate care.” 37. With regard to the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, the petitioners contended that the actions that the Peruvian State alleged were still pending were precisely the actions and measures being used by SUNAT to delay enforcing the judgment. In the petitioners’ opinion, they were exempt from exhausting domestic remedies under the provisions of the exemptions enshrined in Article 46.2.a and 46.2.c of the American Convention. 38. In that sense, the petitioners alleged that the conclusion of the enforcement of judgment stage could hardly be stipulated as a requirement before lodging a petition with the Commission, because Article 25.2.c of the Convention does not impose as a condition the obligation of national authorities to guarantee compliance with the terms of the judgment by the completion of the enforcement of judgment stage; only that there be a favorable judicial decision. 39. In the petitioners’ opinion, the facts described constituted a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21, 24, 8 and 25 of the American Convention with regard to the general obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, as well as of the right recognized in Article 9 of the Protocol of San Salvador and of Article XVI of the American Declaration. 40. Finally, the petitioners alleged that the benefits of the judgment must cover all those members of the association whose acquired right is legally recognized and who were dismissed beginning in 1992 because otherwise, it would constitute a violation of the right to equality before the law and the principle of non-discrimination. In that regard, the petitioners pointed out that in the decision of June 3, 2005, which ordered the SUNAT to comply with the judgment, 102 members of the association were excluded which, in their opinion, constituted a violation of the right to equality before the law. B. The State 16