(...) given that this is a matter of rights recognized in favor of the employee which the company itself later unilaterally ceased to recognize, the amparo suit for restoration of the infringed right guaranteed in Article 5721 of the Political Constitution of the State is in order in accordance with law.22 23. The Supreme Court ruled as follows: (...) Communication GA-0131/91, providing for the suspension, ordered by the defendant, of the plaintiff's inclusion in the pension and benefits scheme envisaged in Decree Law 20530 and of payment of his pension, is inapplicable to the plaintiff, wherefore his rights shall be restored to their status prior to the violation of the Constitution (...). This resolution is final. 23 C. Regarding the second application for enforcement of rights (amparo) filed by Mr. Muelle 24. Not long after the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice in favor of Mr. Muelle, on February 17, 1993 the company issued Board of Director's Decision No. 023/93 , suspending decisions 155/88 and 029/9024 which, as indicated above, had established company's power to include workers in the pension scheme envisaged by Decree Law 20530. Consequently, it ordered a suspension of retirement pension payments to its former workers.25 25. Mr. Muelle filed a second amparo suit to block application of Decision No. 023/93.26 He also requested reinstatement of his right to continue receiving his pension pursuant to Decree Law 20530 and Law 25273.27 26. On February 23, 1995, the Seventeenth Civil Court of Lima declared the suit inadmissible.28 The Court concluded as follows: (...) Decision No. 023/93 (…) does not violate or threaten any constitutional right of [the plaintiff], since it does not amend or terminate his right to inclusion in the Decree Law 20530 pension and benefits scheme, which right is fully guaranteed, safeguarded, and protected by the final judgment (...) in his favor in the constitutional law proceeding he brought before the Fifth Specialized Court (...) and which is being executed and the full implementation of which must be verified before said court.29 27. On July 14, 1995, the First Civil Division of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima pronounced on Mr. Muelle's appeal and confirmed the judgment of the lower court.30 The Division considered that the 21 Article 57 of the Peruvian Constitution in force at the time. Recognized workers' rights may not be waived. The exercise of such rights is guaranteed by the Constitution. Any agreement to the contrary shall be null and void. In the event of any interpretation or doubt as to the scope and content of any labor provision, the position most favorable to the worker shall prevail. 22 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 23 Judgment of the Supreme Court, of February 2, 1993. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 24 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 25 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 26 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 27 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 28 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 29 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 30 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 5