of the pension he was legally entitled to."48 The ONP answered, stating it was "not competent to pronounce on his request and that [he] should (...) file his complaint with the company paying his pension."49 38. The State pointed out that on January 5 and March 23, 2009, the 38th Civil Court of Lima, which had become competent to enforce the February 1993 judgment, issued two resolutions.50 In those resolutions, the Court ordered the company to comply with the aforementioned judgment within three days.51 39. On April 26, 2010, the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court of Lima issued a new resolution.52 The Court stated the following: (...) despite the reiterated instructions to the defendant company to comply with the provisions of the Supreme Court judgment, said company is not complying (...). Subsequently, in 2007, the file was case was reopened at the request of the plaintiff, who also asked this court to obtain compliance with the Supreme Court judgment. The defendant party was notified of this request and stated, in its response, that after the Supreme Court ruling had been issued, privatization of the Tintaya mining company had begun, so that (...) the party required to make the payment pursuant to the Supreme Court judgment had long since ceased to exist (...).53 40. In light of the above, the Court concluded as follows: (...) the plaintiff's claim before this court has become no longer viable (...), given that the current owner is a different private enterprise, as indicated above (...); the appellant retains his right to have appropriate legal recource to assert his claim resolved in his favor by the 1993 Supreme Court judgment.54 41. On May 17, 2010, Mr. Muelle filed an appeal against the resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima.55 Two days later said Court forwarded the appeal to the Civil Division.56 The petitioner reported that the judge presiding over the 38th Civil Court of Lima was replaced, as a result of which his appeal was only submitted for processing to the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima in October 2010.57 The petitioner added that that Division recused itself from hearing the appeal "because the case was supposedly old" and returned the file to the 28th Civil Court of Lima.58 42. On April 13, 2011, the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima annulled the resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima of April 2010.59 The Division stated the following: 48 Communication of the ONP of August 24, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 49 Communication of the ONP of October 26, 2000. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 31, 2004. 50 State’s communication of February 26, 2010. 51 State’s communication of Friday, February 26, 2010. 52 Resolution of the Fifth Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010. Annex 8 to the petitioner's communication of May 29, 2010. 53 Resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010. Annex 8 to the petitioner's communication of May 29, 2010. 54 Resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010. Annex 8 to the petitioner's communication of May 29, 2010. 55 Appeal by Oscar Muelle of May 17, 2010. Attached to the petitioner's communication of May 29, 2010. 56 Resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima of May 19, 2010. Attached to the petitioner's communication of October 30, 2010. 57 Petitioner’s communication of October 30, 2010. 58 Petitioner’s communication of October 30, 2010. 59 Resolution No. 6 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima of April 13, 2011. Attached to the petitioner's communication of July 18, 2011. 8