in the [Central Government, the Regional Governments, the Local Governments, the Offices of State, the Decentralized Autonomous Organizations, and the Decentralized Public Institutions, according to that provided in Legislative Decree No. 817],”6 or “correspond to contributions carried out for employers belonging to the private sector.” Thus, the Court notes that, according to that stated by the Office of Pension Standardization, the Decree Law No. 20530 established that it is possible to “simultaneously receive two pensions from the State, when one of them stems from teaching services lent to public teaching,” but that “this exception has not been established for those pensioners of the National Pension System, regulated by Decree Law No. 19990, to which the provisions established by Decree Law No. 817 apply.” 17. As such, the Court considers that of the information provided by the State, it has not even been proven whether the victim is subject to the regime of Decree Law No. 20530. Thus, even though at first glance it appeared as though the State and Mrs. Loayza Tamayo coincided regarding the inclusion of the victim in the regime of Decree Law No. 20530, it is clear from the case file of Memorandum No. 686-2010-DSO.SP/ONP of April 15, 2010, wherein the Sub-director of Provision Payments of the Office of Pension Standardization reported that the victim “is NOT in [its] records as a pensioner of Decree Laws Nos. 19990, 18846, and 20530, nor in the Special Regimes that [said] office administers.” Therefore, there is a discrepancy between the information contained in the Memorandum and that noted by the State upon recognizing that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo is unemployed pursuant to Decree Law No. 20530 (supra Considering clause 13) and that her contributions to the National Pension System are proven since 2002. 18. The Court recalls that compliance with the present measure is conditioned on it being established that the victim is subject to the pension regimes that correspond to Decree Laws Nos. 20530 and 19990. Said condition assumes that the victim would receive a retirement pension for her work in the health sector (Decree Law No. 20530) and another for her activities in the education sector (Decree Law No. 19990). Given that the State has indicated that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo must comply with a series of requisites in order to be accepted into the pensioner regime of Decree Law No. 19990, the Court considers that it is necessary for the victim to understand said requirements and that, as such, the State must answer the comments made by her regarding the fact that the enjoyment of two pensions must include the years worked, as well as those where she was deprived of liberty” and was a political refugee. (supra Considering clause 14). 19. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers it essential that, pursuant to the specific circumstances of this case and the situation of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo, the State confirm whether the victim is subject to the regime of Decree Law No. 20530 and provide complete and detailed information regarding the requirements to ensure the full enjoyment of her right to retirement under Decree Law No. 19990. The latter should include information on legal regulations, formalities, and procedures in place at the internal level in order for her to obtain the social benefits. All this, notwithstanding that the State immediately make the necessary arrangements and provide the means in the respective process to comply with this obligation. 6 Official Letter No. 489-2007-GO/ONP of July 19, 2007 (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VI, folio 2171.29)and Official Letter No. 162-2008-GO/ONP of April 17, 2008 (case file of Monitoring of Compliance with Judgment, tome VIII, folio 2498), which correspond to the Office of Pension Standardization, Office of Operations. 7