59. On March 3, 2006, the 60th Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima issued a resolution declaring the observations to the Expert Report presented by SUNAT unfounded and ordered pensions should be adjusted for the 566 members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT as per the report’s details68. 60. In view of the appeal filed by SUNAT, on March 20, 2006, the 60th Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima submitted the court records to the Superior Court of Justice of Lima69. 61. On July 24, 2006, the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima declared the resolution issued on March 3, 2006 null and void and ordered a new accounting expert review to be conducted70. 62. On September 28, 2006, ANCEJUB-SUNAT brought a complaint before the Head of the District Office Governing the Magistrates’ Council of Lima against two of the members of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima 71. ANCEJUB-SUNAT presented said claim considering that the members “had incurred disciplinary administrative responsibility in the amparo action process in the judgment execution stage (…) for issuing the resolution dated July 24, 2006, (…) in violation of the res judicata, judicial protection and due process rights.”72 63. On October 25, 2006, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima ordered “a new accounting expert’s report [be issued] in observance of paragraph c) in article 3 of Legislative Decree [N°] 673, since the adjustment has to refer to the remuneration of an active official or worker in the Public Administration at the same hierarchical level or category the pensioner occupied at the time he or she stopped working”73. Furthermore, the Court ordered that the Court-appointed Experts’ Roster of the Judiciary (REPEJ) intervenes in the appointment of the court-appointed accounting expert74. 64. On May 17, 2007, ANCEJUB-SUNAT rejected the professional fee proposal submitted by the REPEJ court-appointed accounting expert to the court because the amount was considered “disproportionate, making it impossible for them to afford such an amount, especially since the fees approved for the first Expert Report had already been paid75. On May 30, 2007, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima submitted the file to the Judicial Expert Report Office to have a new Expert Report76. 67 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on March 3, 2006 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 26, 2006). 68 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on March 3, 2006 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 26, 2006). 69 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on March 20, 2006 (Attached to the State’s writ dated March 28, 2006). 70 Resolution issued by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima de on July 24, 2006, (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated December 29, 2009). 71 Complaint filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Head of the District Office Governing the Magistrates’ Council of Lima on September 28, 2006, (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated August 24, 2006). 72 Complaint filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Head of the District Office Governing the Magistrates’ Council of Lima de on September 28, 2006, (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated August 24, 2006). 73 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on October 25, 2006 (Attached to the State’s writ dated June 3, 2006). 74 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on October 25, 2006 (Attached to the State’s writ dated June 3, 2006). 75 Writ drafted by ANCEJUB-SUNAT addressed to the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of the Superior Court of Lima dated May 21, 2009 (Attached to the State’s writ dated September 29, 2010). 76 Writ drafted by ANCEJUB-SUNAT addressed to the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of the Superior Court of Lima dated May 21, 2009 (Attached to the State’s writ dated September 29, 2010). 12