proceedings do not involve a discussion of the right of the victims to receive an aligned pension, but rather – as the SBS requested – the way in which this alignment should be calculated.” On this basis, “the SBS has demanded reimbursement of the pension amounts deducted each month, and requested that, as a precautionary measure, they be deposited under the protection of the court that initiated the judicial proceedings against them, over the last five years.” Thus, the pensions “have been drastically reduced to even less than that in 1992, when they began the proceedings to claim [their] rights.” According to the representative, “the judges in charge of these proceedings have applied retroactively the criteria established in a 2002 judgment of the Constitutional Court […], which could not be applied to a situation defined previously by judgments delivered a decade ago (1994, 1998, 2000), which […] were res judicata.” 22. The Commission indicated that “in this process of monitoring compliance with judgment, it has been established that actions for declaration of nullity are not the appropriate means for determining the patrimonial consequences of the violation declared by the Court.” The Commission concluded that “the State has not complied with this aspect of the judgment, nor has it responded to the Court’s request in its order of November 24, 2009, to provide information on the measures taken to fulfill this provision of the judgment.” In addition, the Commission affirmed that “by means of the annulment proceedings, the State seeks to alter the factual grounds of the Inter-American Court’s judgment in which it concluded that the payments should be made as determined in the domestic sphere (in other words, the private sector regime), because this was what the court decisions in favor of the victims established (para. 115 of the judgment).” 23. Based on the information submitted by the parties during the stage of monitoring compliance, and taking into account the provisions of the judgment in this case, the Court underlines the following facts: a) In 1994, the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice handed down final judgments declaring admissible the applications for amparo filed by the victims against the arbitrary reduction of their pensions by the SBS.20 The purpose of an application for amparo is to “restore the situation prior to the violation or threatened violation of a constitutional right, and it is appropriate in cases in which constitutional rights are violated, or there is a threat that they may be violated, by act or omission.”21 In this regard, the judgments ordered the reimbursement [by the SBS] of the amounts that the victims had not received, as well as the alignment of their respective pensions as in the past; that is, aligning the pensions to the salary received by active SBS officials who belong to the private sector regime.22 In three of the judgments on appeal delivered by the First Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice, in order to declare the application for amparo admissible, the said court based itself on the fact that the SBS had reduced the pensions without respecting due process.23 In 1995, the 20 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, paras. 88.h, 89.c, 89.j, 89.q, 89.x, and 89.ee. 21 Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 23506 on Hábeas Corpus and Amparo, cited in the decisions of the First Instance Civil Court of Lima, with regard to the applications for amparo filed by Reymert Bartra Vásquez, Carlos Torres Benvenuto and Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of attachments to the application, attachment 44, folio 179; merits file, attachment 9, folios 389 to 391, and file of attachments to the application, attachment 39, folios 166 to 168, respectively). In addition, in the judgment of the First Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice in relation to the application for amparo filed by Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (file of attachments to the application, attachment 47, folios 185 and 186). 22 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, paras. 88(h), 89(c), 89(j), 89(q), 89(x), and 89(ee). 23 Cf. Decision of the First Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of September 22, 1993, in the case of Carlos Torres Benvenuto (merits file, attachment 9 to the brief answering the application, folios 378 to 388); decision of the First Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of November 12, 1993, in the case of Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of attachments to the application, attachment 40, folios 169 to 170); 8