24 ordered by the Supreme Court ruling.101 The decision established that Xstrata Tintaya S.A. was a private company, whose obligation to pay the pension rights claimed had not been demonstrated. 102 90. On May 17, 2010, the same date on which he was notified, Mr. Muelle Flores filed an appeal against the aforesaid resolution;103 his appeal was then forwarded to the Civil Chamber.104 In his brief, Mr. Muelle acknowledged receipt of pension payments corresponding to the period from February 1991 to December 2000, as well as those for the months of January to June, 2001 105 (supra para. 80). 91. On April 13, 2011, the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima annulled the resolution of the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010, and ordered the restoration of the procedural act affected. The Second Civil Chamber considered that the Thirty-eighth Civil Court had assumed as completely true the statements made by Xstrata Tintaya S.A., without first determining whether the “Magma Copper” company had or had not taken over the assets and liabilities of the initial defendant party (Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya S.A.). The Chamber concluded that if indeed it had assumed all those assets and liabilities, then that private company would also be required to pay Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension. The Chamber also emphasized that the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court had issued its resolution without specifying the facts and the corresponding legal provisions supporting its decision, in violation of the right to due substantiation of judicial resolutions.106 92. On May 17, 2012, the Thirty-third Civil Court of Lima issued a resolution requiring Xstrata Tintaya S.A. to comply with the order issued by the Supreme Court in its judgment of February 2, 1993.107 The company filed an appeal against said resolution.108 On October 30, 2012, the Thirtythird Civil Court of Lima decided that “[…] it [was] reasonable to order the temporary suspension of the [execution] process, pending a [decision] on the appeal filed by the [defendant] company.” 109 On November 20, 2012, Mr. Muelle Flores appealed against this last decision to suspend the execution process, arguing that it impaired the res judicata status of the previous judgments granting him his pension rights, so that there could be no change or delay in their enforcement. 110 93. On October 10, 2013, the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice issued a decision annulling the resolution of May 17, 2012 of the Thirty-third Civil Court of Lima. The Chamber examined the purchase-sale contract of Tintaya S.A., of November 29, 1994, and concluded that when the State-owned company was privatized, the private purchaser Magma Copper Corporation and Global Magma Ltd., did not take over the liabilities of the State-owned company, or the obligation 101 Cf. Resolution of the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010 (evidence file, folio 68). 102 Cf. Resolution of the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010 (evidence file, folio 68). 103 Cf. Appeal filed by Oscar Muelle on May 17, 2010 (evidence files, folio 70). 104 Cf. Resolution of the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court of Lima of May 19, 2010 (evidence file, folio 83). 105 Cf. Appeal filed by Oscar Muelle on May 17, 2010 (evidence file, folios 74 and 75). 106 Cf. Resolution of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of April 13, 2011 (evidence file, folio 98). 107 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1721). 108 Cf. Resolution No. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1721). 109 Resolution of the Thirty-Third Civil Court of Lima of October 30, 2012 (evidence file, folio 114). 110 Cf. Appeal filed by Oscar Muelle on November 20, 2012 (evidence file, folio 116).