19 64. On February 23, 1995, the Seventeenth Civil Court of Lima declared his application for amparo inadmissible, concluding that Board of Directors Decision No. 023/93 did not violate or threaten any constitutional right, since it did not amend or terminate his right to be included in the pension and benefits scheme of Decree Law 20530. The court declared that his right was “fully guaranteed, safeguarded and protected by the final judgment” adopted in his favor in the constitutional proceeding before the Fifth Specialized Court. It added that this decision was being executed and that its full implementation must be verified before that court.69 65. On July 14, 1995, the First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima confirmed the judgment of the lower court, considering that the Supreme Court decision of February 2, 1993, had the status of res judicata in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, and therefore it could and should oppose any attempt to mount an assault on his rights. In this sense, it concluded that no further action could be brought against an act that expresses “clear and unlawful resistance to the decision of the jurisdictional authority.” 70 66. On August 26, 1997, the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled on Mr. Muelle Flores’ appeal for a reversal of judgment and declared his appeal inadmissible.71 In light of the ruling, Mr. Muelle Flores filed an extraordinary appeal with the Constitutional Court. 67. On December 10, 1999, the Constitutional Court revoked the decision issued by the Supreme Court of Justice and declared the second amparo suit well-founded. The Constitutional Court considered that the pension rights acquired by the plaintiff under Decree Law No. 20530 could not be disregarded by the defendant (company) unilaterally and extemporaneously, that is, outside the six-month term allotted to the management to declare the annulment of administrative decisions, thereby disregarding labor rights and principles of constitutional rank. The Judgment emphasized that the only way to determine the nullity of resolutions constituting res judicata, which were immutable, was through regular proceedings before a competent court.72 68. The Constitutional Court declared that Board of Directors Decision No. 023/93 of February 17, 1993, was inapplicable to the petitioner and ordered the company to comply with the continued payment of the adjustable retirement pension that Mr. Muelle Flores had been receiving. It also declared that the request for compensation was inadmissible.73 G. Contentious-administrative proceeding 69. The State-owned company Tintaya S.A. filed suit in the administrative courts requesting that that Mr. Muelle Flores’ reincorporation into the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme be declared inadmissible.74 On January 21, 1994, the complaint was declared well-founded. This ruling was appealed and the case was forwarded to the Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima. 70. Under the First Supplementary Provision of Decree Law No. 817,75 the Administrative Chamber 69 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 27). 70 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 27). 71 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 27). 72 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 29). 73 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of December 10, 1999 (evidence file, folio 29). 74 Cf. Judgment of the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of October 29, 1997 (evidence file folio 387). 75 Cf. First Supplementary Provision of Legislative Decree No. 817, published on April 23, 1996, in the Official Gazette El