12 that “in the […] judgment of the Inter-American Court […] it was precisely valued, in the ground [89.f] the ‘administrative decision [No. 289-2002], in which inter alia it was decided “[t]o comply with SBS’s Decision No. 283-95 [of April 7, 1995],’ which means that the administrative decisions, subjectmatter of this precautionary measure, are not, actually, null and void, as the SBS alleges to satisfy the requirement of credibility, and should this be the case, the request for precautionary measure has no legal ground, and it would not be necessary to review the compliance with the requirement of danger in the delay, given that since both requirements must be fulfilled in order to grant said measure, the non-fulfillment of one of them is sufficient to dismiss the request for precautionary measure”. Hence, the Supreme Court of Justice revoked the precautionary measure adopted against Carlos Alberto Torres Benvenuto. 26. That the State informed that, by means of Decision N° 1407 of February 26, 2009, the SBS decided to authorize “the dismissal of the requests made as additional claim [regarding the restitution of the pension sums paid in excess] in the […] judicial proceedings [instituted against the victims in the instant case] and, if applicable, to dismiss the appeals filed” (supra Having Seen 11 and Considering clauses 23, 24 and 25). 27. That the representative pointed out, at the private hearing, that the pensions of the victims were reduced between “ten and twenty times from its value […] and the sums that they are now collecting are less than the half of what they used to receive before the commencement of all the judicial proceedings that were instituted over the last 17 years, [when] the Superintendency recognized them the right to a pension of 2.500 soles, which was afterwards reduced to 500 and gave rise to the complaints they filed". They mentioned that, as a result of the proceedings instituted against them, “they are living today a worst situation than 17 years ago”. Furthermore, the representative stated that "in order to file [the] complaints [against the five pensioners], the State has made a sui generis interpretation of the judgment of the Court, [which] did not decide that the domestic courts, and according to the domestic legislation, should determine whether or not they had a right to an adjustable pension, which was decided in the judgment. It ordered, instead, that the domestic courts should determine the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property, the damages, the consequential damage, the loss of earning, among other aspects". According to the representative, “not only has the State flagrantly failed to comply with a judgment that it was its duty to honor and comply, in good faith, but also there is an aggravating circumstance in this act of the State and it is the fact that the State has invoked the judgment of the Court to cause [a] damage […] to the five victims of this case”. To this end, it pointed out that the decision made by this Court in its Judgment of February 28, 2003 does not "authorize the State to interpret this mandate as an authorization to disregard, once again, the decisions with authority of final judgments that the most important courts of Peru had entered” in favor of the five pensioners. 28. That the representative informed that the dismissal authorized by decision N° 1407 of February 26, 2009 (supra Considering clause 26) only comprises the additional claims to the complaints already filed, but not the main claim thereof. Said dismissal “is ordered, based on two reasons: the first one is that said claim was systematically dismissed by the Judiciary in all the complaints filed by the SBS, and the second one is that this legal opinion is uniform in all the instances of the