25 to pay pensions. It stressed that the pension rules of Decree Law No. 20530 regulated State pensions and benefits financed with State resources, and consequently the private company could not administer pension funds; moreover, it emphasized that it did not take on that obligation and that in accordance with the cited Decree, the plaintiff’s legal relationship was with the State.111 In addition, the Second Chamber considered that, in the case of privatized companies, the rules introduced in 2002 stipulated which public entities would be responsible for awarding and paying pensions under the system in question.112 The Chamber ordered that a new resolution be issued, “taking these considerations into account.”113 Thus, the resolution of October 30, 2012, ordering the suspension of the [execution] proceeding pending a decision on the appeal, was rendered ineffective.114 94. On September 5, 2014, the Thirty-third Civil Court adopted a resolution requiring that the MEF provide information on the assets and liabilities assumed by the former State company Tintaya S.A. This information was required in an official letter dated September 9, 2014.115 95. On June 11, 2015, the Thirty-third Civil Court issued a resolution declaring without merit the annulment of the resolution of September 5, 2014, and considered that the company Xstrata Tintaya S.A. should assume the obligation to pay Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension. The Thirty-third Civil Court emphasized that the judgment of February 2, 1993, was issued prior to the privatization of Tintaya S.A. and based its annulment decision on the following arguments: a) the MEF and the ONP concluded that they did not have the obligation to pay Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, since the judgment of the Constitutional Court had expressly stated that Tintaya S.A. had the obligation to pay it (supra paras. 67 and 68); b) “it [had] been accredited that Magma Copper Corporation Tintaya assumed the legal universality of the company’s assets [the State company Tintaya S.A.]”; c) the company BHP Billiton Tintaya S.A. made pension payments, and d) “it [was] obvious that Xstrata Tintaya S.A. ha[d] also taken on the assets and liabilities of the previous companies.”116 This decision was appealed by Xstrata Tintaya S.A. 96. On October 26, 2015, the Thirty-third Civil Court instructed the private investment promotion agency (Proinversión) to report, urgently, on the assets and liabilities assumed by the former Stateowned company Tintaya S.A.117 Given that this agency did not provide the information requested, Mr. Muelle Flores presented a brief on June 7, 2016, requesting that Proinversión be ordered to comply with that request, under penalty of a fine.118 111 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1725 to 1729). 112 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1728). 113 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1730). 114 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folios 1737 to 1738). 115 Cf. Resolution No. 104 of the Thirty-Third Civil Court of Lima of September 5, 2014 and Official Letter issued by the Thirty-Third Civil Court of Lima on September 9, 2014 (evidence file, folios 1740 to 1741). 116 Cf. Resolution No. 106 of the Thirty-Third Civil Court of Lima of June 11, 2015 (evidence file, folios 1743-1746). 117 Cf. Resolution No. 109 of the Thirty-Third Civil Court of Lima of October 26, 2015 (evidence file, folio 1748). This Court requested information from Proinversión after the MEF indicated, on July 21, 2015, that the State entity that should provide a response on the assets and liabilities assumed by the former State-owned company Tintaya S.A. would be the National Fund for State Business Activity (FONAFE). In turn, on July 17, 2015, FONAFE indicated that the entity that should respond to that request was PROINVERSIÓN. Cf. Brief of Mr. Muelle of May 3, 2017 (evidence file, folios 1754 to 1755). 118 Cf. Brief of Mr. Muelle of June 7, 2016 (evidence file, folios 1750-1751).