Constitutional Court granted their petition of amparo and thereby rendered inapplicable the ruling delivered by the Lima Superior Court’s Transitional Corporatist Public Law Chamber on February 12, 1999. It held that the judgment’s enforcement was to proceed, which meant that the respective judicial body was to comply, immediately and unconditionally, with the order contained in the Constitutional Court’s decision of October 21, 1997. 13. Thus, the petitioners argue that the ruling of the Constitutional Court becameres judicata as of its issuance. Yet, despite repeated attempts to get the court ruling enforced, it has still not been executed. By its failure to enforce that court ruling, the petitioners contend that the Peruvian State has violated their right to property, their right to a fair trial and their right to effective judicial protection, recognized, respectively, in Articles 21, 8 and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the members of the Association of Discharged and Retired Staff of the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Peru. B. The State’s position 14. The State has not challenged the admissibility of the petition under study. 15. The State alleges that the Office of the Comptroller General took several steps to comply with the court order. It asked the Ministry of Economy and Finance to put back into the budget of the Office of the Comptroller General, the appropriation necessary to cover the pensions of the discharged and retired staff of the Office of the Comptroller General, beginning with the 2001 budget. It also adopted a resolution ordering parity between discharged and retired staff of the Office of the Comptroller General and its active staff at various levels. However, it has not yet complied with the ruling of the Constitutional Court. IV. ANALYSIS 16. The Commission will now examine the requirements that the American Convention establishes for a petition’s admissibility. A. The Commission’s competence ratione materiae, ratione personae andratione temporis 17. The Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 18. Concerning its competence ratione personae, the Commission notes that the petitioners are charging the Peruvian State with violations of human rights recognized in the American Convention. Because Peru ratified that Convention on July 28, 1978, the Commission is competent ratione personae to take cognizance of this petition, by express provision of Article 33 of the Convention. The petitioners are non-governmental organizations legally recognized in Peru and, under Article 44 of the Convention, have the authority to file petitions with the Commission. Therefore, insofar as the petitioners are concerned, the Commission is competent ratione personae to take cognizance of this petition. The alleged victims are natural persons whose Convention-recognized rights Peru pledged to respect and guarantee. Therefore, in that respect the Commission is equally competent to hear the petition under study. 19. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear this petition because the alleged violations of Convention-protected rights were said to have occurred within the territory of a State party to the Convention. 20. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis because by the time the facts alleged in the petition occurred, the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention was already binding upon the Peruvian State. 3