3 15. The petitioner also reported that he had presented a criminal complaint against certain officials of the company on charges of violation of freedom to work and abuse of authority. However, he explained that on June 30, 1997, the Second Criminal Court found that the legal action was barred by the statute of limitations, and ordered the proceeding closed. 16. The petitioner pointed out that although the “Tintaya” Special Mining Company had been paying him the amount of eight hundred soles a month since 1999, this amount was not consistent with the amount determined by the Supreme Court of Justice on February 2, 1993 and by the Constitutional Court on December 10, 1999. He indicated that in the latest decision of the Constitutional Court, it determined renewable payment of his pension comparable to that of active employees, which was not done by the respondent company. The petitioner maintained that it is not possible to quantify the exact amount to which he is entitled since he does not have access to the payroll of employees working for the respondent company. He reported, however, that the amount he was being paid by the company had been considerably reduced in real terms, since no account was taken of the rate of inflation of more than 2000% that prevailed in Peru in the 1990s, and that it did not comply with the criteria for renewability and leveling of the system stipulated in Decree-Law 20530. 17. The petitioner further contends that it is the private company BHP “Tintaya” S.A., now called Xstraya Tintaya S.A., the one obligated to make the pending pension payments, by virtue of the fact that at the time of privatization, it took over the assets and liabilities of the “Tintaya” Special Mining Company S.A., owned by the State of Peru, for which he worked as General Manager. 18. In his May 29, 2010 communication, received by the IACHR on July 8, 2010, the petitioner informed that on April 26, 2010, the 38th Civil Court of Lima, under request of Xstraya Tintaya S.A., issued a decision nullifying its own previous resolutions which ordered the company to comply with the pending pension payments, and at the same time called upon Mr. Muelle to present his claim against the State instead of the company, according to the law. The decision was notified to the petitioner on May 17, 2010, and on the same date the alleged victim appealed. B. Position of the State 19. In its answer to the complaint, the State described the judicial proceedings and decisions issued in relation to the petitioner’s situation. It acknowledged that in this matter, evidence shows a violation of Mr. Muelle’s pension rights, that the Constitutional Court considered in its judgment on December 10, 1999, and that the pension rights acquired by petitioner under Decree-Law 20530 cannot be disavowed by the respondent company unilaterally, outside the terms stipulated by law. 20. It stated that the 38th Civil Court of Lima, which assumed jurisdiction for execution of the judgment of February 2, 1993, ordered the Tintaya Special Mining Company S.A. to comply with the pension payments pursuant to the regime stipulated in Decree-Law 20530. It indicated that during the execution stage, the petitioner requested that his pension be brought in line with the post of general manager of that company. 21. The State indicated that on April 6, 2009, the 38th Civil Court of Lima issued a notice to the Company and called for compliance with the Supreme Court’s final decision dated February 2, 1993, indicating that should it fail to do so, according to the Decision dated April 7, 1997, certified copies would be issued in preparation to a criminal complaint against the responsible parties. According to the State’s explanation, the Xstraya Tintaya S.A. company had previously appeared at the execution process and stated that it was not responsible for any future liabilities, and that the competent entity responsible for pending pension payments is the Ministry of Economy and Finance, in accordance with the provisions of Law No. 27719, ratified by Law 28115 of December 6, 2003. The State did not deliver an opinion on said statement by the respondent company ordered to make payment in the execution process. IV. ANALYSIS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY 3