former worker at the State-owned Tintaya mine. The details of the facts and proceedings are to be found in the Proven Facts section. 7. Mr. Muelle stated that in September 1990 he retired from a state-owned mining company and was included in the pension scheme established by Decree Law 20530, which contained the scale of pensions and benefits for civil servants' services rendered to the State by workers on active duty. He maintained that he was receiving such pension until February 1991 when he received a notification from the company stating that the application of Decree Law 20530 had been suspended. 8. The petitioner maintained that he filed an "amparo" suit challenging that decision, which the Supreme Court heard in final instance. He pointed out that, in its judgment of February 1993, the Supreme Court ordered Mr. Muelle's reincorporation in the pension scheme governed by Decree Law 20530. The petitioner added that in response to the ruling the company issued a Decision (acuerdo) in which it attempted to annul his reincorporation into the scheme governed by that law. He maintained that, faced with that situation, he filed a second amparo appeal, which was heard in final instance by the Constitutional Court. He added that, in its judgment of December 1999, the Constitutional Court ordered the company to comply with “continued payment" of the pension money that Mr. Muelle was receiving. The petitioner stated that, despite that, those judgments have still not been executed. 9. Regarding the right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, the petitioner alleged that the State had violated it by not complying with its obligation to abide by the court judgments ordering adjustment (nivelación) of the pension money owed to him. With regard to the right to private property, the petitioner argued that failure to pay his pension as ordered by the courts had impaired his net worth. B. Position of the State 10. The State acknowledged that the facts the petitioner complained about did occur, as did the judgments handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, in 1993 and 1999, respectively. It maintained, nonetheless, that it is not responsible for the violations alleged by the petitioner inasmuch as judicial guarantees were respected in each of the proceedings that Mr. Muelle initiated. It added that each country addressed its debt to pensioners based on internal provisions. It maintained that, that being so, the amounts of the benefits owed the petitioner "will be determined by applying the rules in effect at the time." 11. The State pointed out that the Constitutional Court had issued a judgment in 2005 stating that "when pensioners call for a pension adjustment system to be maintained (...) all they are doing is using their entitlement to the pension to their advantage." The State maintained that, based on that judgment, Mr. Muelle's claim to a pension equivalent to the position he had held as General Manager should not be admitted. 12. In its reports of November 2012 and 2013, the Peruvian State maintained that the process of complying with the Supreme Court judgment of 1993 is at the execution of judgment stage. It reiterated that the determination of the pensions and other financial benefits "will be determined by a court." IV. PROVEN FACTS A. Regarding Mr. Muelle's situation up to February 1991 13. Oscar Muelle Flores worked for the State-owned Tintaya mining company3 from June 1, 1981 4 until 1990. Mr. Muelle held various different positions within the company, the last one being the position of General Manager.5 3 Tintaya S.A. Based on information provided by the parties, the IACHR notes that the company was later privatized and became Xstrata 2