b.3) Second writ of amparo 52. On August 11, 1997, in pursuit of the execution of the decision of February 12, FEMAPOR filed a second writ of amparo before the Special Collective Court of Callao asking that the Ministry of Economy and Finances (hereinafter “the MEF”) be ordered, lest it be subject to the attachment of State property, to pay the sum owed to the maritime and river workers. 52 On January 15, 1998, this request was denied since “it was not possible at this stage of the execution of the process […] to decide whether the MEF is the body that has the obligation to implement the decision in question even against its opposition,” since that right should be upheld “administratively and judicially,” 53 which led to the filing of several motions and an appeal of complaint before the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court, which, on December 15, 1999, declared it without merit and proceeded to archive it. 54 b.4) Procedure before the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson (Defensoría del Pueblo) 53. On November 21, 1996, FEMAPOR presented a claim to the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson. On November 3, 1997, the latter issued a resolution in which it: URGES the Ministry of Economy and Finance, in keeping with the terms of Decree-Law 25,702, to consider, in drawing up the General Budget of the Republic for 1998 and, if necessary, those immediately following, the resources that make it possible to cover the payments for social benefits that must be paid to the affiliates of FEMAPOR. 55 54. The Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson sent communications to the MEF on January 12, May 4 and August 14, 1998, urging compliance of the decision. 56 55. In October 1998, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson issued a report entitled “Failure of the State administration to enforce judgments.” The Office found that the failure to enforce judgments against State institutions is a constant problem with respect to the judiciary. It argued that, since it was created in 1993, it had brought about 101 complaints against various State agencies for failure to comply with final judgments against them. It indicated that more than 50% of the complaints refer to “court orders with labor-related content that go unenforced.” The Office explained that the vast majority of cases refer to court orders that “imply the performance of a patrimonial content such as adjusting pensions.” 57 b.5) Approval of the liquidation of pension statements and payments made by the State 56. On June 4, 2003, Supreme Decree 078-2003-MEF was issued, which established a Multisectoral Commission charged with compiling qualitative and quantitative information on the maritime and port workers, comprised of one representative each from the MEF, the Ministry of Labor and Work Cf. Writ of amparo presented before the Collective Civil Court, of August 11, 1997 (evidence file. fs. 3112 to 3118). 53 Cf. Collective Civil Court of Callao. Resolution of January 15, 1998 (evidence file, f.3121. Cf. Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court, Resolution 445-98, of December 15, 1999 (evidence file, f. 3130). 55 Cf. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, Resolution 059-97, of November 3, 1997 (evidence file, f. 4340). 56 Cf. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, Communication DP-98-021, by Walter Albán Peralta, First Deputy Ombudsman, addressed to the MEF, of January 12, 1998, Communication DP-98-407, by Jorge Santisteban de Noriega, Ombudsperson, addressed to the MEF, of May 4, 1998, and Communication DP-98-0690, by Jorge Santisteban de Noriega, addressed to the Minister of State of the Office of Economy and Finances, of August 14, 1998 (evidence file, fs. 4343 to 4347). 57 Cf. Office of the Human Rights Ombudsperson, Report 19, “Failure of the State administration to enforce judgments.” October 1998, pp. 6 and 7. Available at: https://www.defensoria.gob.pe/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/informe_19.pdf 54 15