21 been privatized (supra para. 57), emphasizing that every individual and authority had an obligation to comply with judicial rulings. The communication concluded that, pursuant to Article 4 of Legislative Decree No. 817, “each entity continues to be responsible for paying the pensions that correspond to it, according to law, with the exception of those entities that, via a Supreme Decree, have transferred their funds and obligations to the ONP, which is not the case of this company.”83 On that same date, the ONP informed Mr. Muelle Flores that it had sent a document to Tintaya S.A. indicating that it must comply with the order of the judicial authority.84 H. Proceeding for the execution of the amparo judgment of February 2, 1993 76. On December 18, 1995, the Fifth Specialized Civil Court of Lima issued a resolution stating that the judgment of February 2, 1993, was a final decision which, by its nature, implied powers of coercion and enforcement and stated that the company had been creating obstacles to the execution of the judgment. The resolution stressed that “Magma Copper Corporation-Tintaya had not challenged the plaintiff’s arguments concerning the merger of the original defendant company and, having assumed the universitas juris of the patrimony of Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya [S.A], […] this also included its liabilities,” and ordered the company to comply with the judgment within three days.85 77. On April 7, 1997, the Fifth Civil Court issued a new resolution stating, “Let the Special Mining Corporation Tintaya S.A. (now BHP Tintaya, S.A) be hereby required for the last time to fully comply within three days with the order handed down by the Supreme Court on February 2, 1993, on pain of issuance of certified copies for filing criminal suit.”86 78. On October 20, 1999, the First Corporate Transitory Chamber Specialized in Public Law ordered the case to be archived because the matter had been paralyzed for more than four months. 87 79. On September 19, 2000, the Pension Standardization Office received a communication from Mr. Muelle Flores dated August 24, 2000, in which he reported that as of 1999, BHP Tintaya S.A. had begun paying him a monthly sum of S/800 new soles. He also reported that the company had not “performed the balanced-out and retroactive calculation of the pension” to which he was legally entitled.88 80. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that, from March 1999 to June 2001, BHP Tintaya S.A. made payments of S/800 new soles monthly to Mr. Muelle Flores for the pensions corresponding to the months between February 1991 and June 2001,89 except for the months 83 Letter issued by the Pension Standardization Office on November 27, 1998 (evidence file, folios 261 to 262). 84 Cf. Letters issued by the Pension Standardization Office on November 27 and December 7, 1998 (evidence file, folios 259 to 260). 85 Cf. Resolution of the Fifth Civil Court of Lima of December 18, 1995 (evidence file, folio 31). 86 Cf. Resolution of the Fifth Civil Court of Lima of April 7, 1997 (evidence file, folio 34). 87 Cf. Resolution of the First Transitory Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law of October 20, 1999 (evidence file, folio 1719). 88 Cf. Communication of August 24, 2000, sent by Oscar Muelle Flores to the Pension Standardization Office, September 19, 2000 (evidence file, folio 36). 89 Based on the evidence provided by the parties, the following payments were made to Mr. Muelle Flores: a) March 19, 1999, for the sum of 59,200 soles, for pensions corresponding to the months from February 1993 to March 1999; b) June 26, 1999, for the sum of 19,200 soles for pensions corresponding to the months from February 1991 to October 1992, and from April to June, 1999; c) September 21, 1999, for the sum of 2,400 soles for pensions corresponding to the months from July to September, 1999; d) December 3, 1999, for the sum of 2,400 soles for pensions corresponding to the months from October