ruling of the Supreme Court of February 1993 "has res judicata status (...) so that another amparo suit against [said] act could not be brought."31 28. On August 26, 1997, the Supreme Court of Justice pronounced on Mr. Muelle's appeal for a reversal of judgment and declared the amparo appeal inadmissible.32 In light of that ruling, Mr. Muelle filed an extraordinary appeal with the Constitutional Court.33 29. On December 10, 1999, the Constitutional Court revoked the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice and declared the amparo suit well-founded.34 The Court argued as follows: (...) the pension rights acquired by the plaintiff under Decree Law 20530 cannot be disregarded by the defendant unilaterally and extemporaneously. The only way to determine the nullity of resolutions constituting res judicata is through regular proceedings before a competent court.35 30. The Constitutional Court declared Decision No. 023/93 inapplicable and ordered the company "to comply with continued payment of the adjustable retirement pension he [the plaintiff] was receiving."36 D. Regarding further appeals filed and the judgment enforcement process. 31. The IACHR notes that during the processing of the two aforementioned amparo appeals and thereafter, several courts issued resolutions regarding new applications and suits by both Mr. Muelle and the company. Following is the Commission's summary of the applications, suits, and rulings presented by the parties for the purpose of the IACHR’S analysis. 1. Suit filed by the company 32. On August 15, 1996, the company filed a suit seeking a declaration of the inadmissibility of Mr. Muelle's reincorporation into the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme.37 On September 2, 1996, the Division for Actions under Administrative Law (Sala Contencioso Administrativa) of the Superior Court of Lima declared the suit well-founded.38 Mr. Muelle filed an appeal to have that judgment annulled.39 33. On August 22, 1997, the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court pronounced, declaring the suit filed by the company groundless.40 The Division argued the following: 31 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 32 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 33 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 34 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 35 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 36 Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 37 38 Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 39 Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 40 Decision of the Constitutional and Social Division of the Supreme Court, August 22, 1997. Attached to the petitioner's communication of November 10, 1998. 6