14 32. That the scope and meaning of the obligation contained in operative paragraph five of the Judgment does not admit an interpretation different to what was strictly stipulated therein, that is, that the competent national organs must establish the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property of the pensioners according to domestic legislation. In this obligation, the Tribunal has not ordered, as the State alleges, the new determination of the pension regime that corresponds to the victims (supra Considering clause 23). 33. That, from the information received so far by the Tribunal, it is clear that, after more than six years of the delivery of the Judgment in the instant case, the State has not adopted any measure to establish, through the competent national organs, the patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property declared to the detriment of the five pensioners; therefore, this obligation is still pending compliance. It falls upon the State to adopt such measures as soon as possible and inform this Court on that respect. 34. That, moreover, this Tribunal notes that even though the facts regarding the annulment remedies filed by the SBS do not refer to the compliance with the reparations ordered by this Court in the operative paragraphs of the Judgment delivered in this case, such facts could have effects on the subject-matter of the proceeding subjected to the Inter-American system34. In that respect, the Court repeats that, according to article 67 of the Convention, "the judgment of the Court shall be final and not subject to appeal". 35. That it is pertinent to emphasize the terms established in the case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru35 to the effect that When a State has ratified an international treaty such as the American Convention, the judges are also subject to it; this obliges them to ensure that the effet util of the Convention is not reduced or annulled by the application of laws contrary to its provisions, object and purpose In other words, the organs of the Judiciary should exercise not only a control of constitutionality, but also of “conventionality” ex officio between domestic norms and the American Convention; evidently in the context of their respective spheres of competence and the corresponding procedural regulations. This function should not be limited exclusively to the statements or actions of the plaintiffs in each specific case, although neither does it imply that this control must always be exercised, without considering other procedural and substantive criteria regarding the admissibility and legitimacy of these types of action. report presented in the public hearing was “to explain the magnitude of the patrimonial damage that had been caused,” and that they did not intend the Court to order the State to reimburse the amounts indicated in this report, but that it should take them as a reference in order to establish compensation for pecuniary damage. Cf. case of the Five Pensioners V. Peru, supra note 1. para. 170.d). 34 The Court has deemed that the binding nature of the judgments is not limited to the operative section, but also is extended to its foundation or ratio decidendi. Cf. furthermore, Judgment C-180/06 of the Constitutional Court of Colombia from March 8, 2006, which indicated that “such effects on constitutional matters support not only the same decision contained in the operative paragraphs of the judgment, but also the juridical reasons contained in the considerations that are related directly and wholly (ratio decidendi)". Quoted in: Case of Garcia Asto and Ramirez Rojas v. Perú, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment. Order of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights of July 12, 2007, Considering Clause 17. 35 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C Nº 158 para. 128.