adjustments and compensatory payments. The State indicated that the new expert report ordered by decision issued on July 24, 2006, is currently pending. The State added that the person that would carry out the expert accounting report was designated on December 19, 2006. As of December 19, 2007, the date of the most recent report submitted by the State, the new expert report had not been completed. 47. By virtue of the preceding, the Peruvian State argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted. The State indicated that there are still actions pending in the enforcement of judgment stage and that the delay in the process was due to the fact that, at first, the Judicial Branch considered that in order to comply with the decisions issued, it was necessary for any individual who felt that, based on the rulings, had a right to compensation to file an individual petition in the administrative venue. The State added that another factor that contributed to the delay was the multiple petitions lodged by the parties on the following aspects: i) the lack of clarity as to who was a member of the association at the time the amparo petition was lodged; and ii) the controversy over the expert reports. 48. The State considers that the demands of the petitioners are being analyzed internally, and that, in that sense, a pronouncement by the Commission would make the Commission a fourth instance. 49. The State also contended that the requirement for lodging the petition on time has not been met because more than six months have elapsed between the date of the judgment, October 25, 1993, and the date the petition was lodged. 50. With regard to other admissibility requirements, the State argued that the facts that motivated the petition no longer exist because, based on the same facts, the association turned to the domestic jurisdiction lodging an amparo petition on April 23, 1999, with the Corporatist Public Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, having obtained a favorable ruling from the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001. The State contends that the preceding is evidence that the petition should not be considered by the IACHR because the motive for lodging it did not exist and does not subsist. 51. With regard to the alleged violations, the State pointed out, in general terms, that in the domestic judicial process the petitioners had had access to the various remedies afforded by the domestic legislation, and that the sole fact that, by virtue of the legislation in force and the jurisprudence in this area, the judicial rulings did not 18