administrative prerequisite, or by arguing a legal impossibility to comply based on an incorrect interpretation of provisions.158 3. Analysis of the specific case 108. As is apparent from the proven facts, in this case there is no controversy around the fact that the members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT were incorporated to the pension scheme under Decree Law 20530 through a resolution issued by a public agency called SUNAT [National Tax Administration Superintendence]. Later, the same organization sent them a communication announcing that the application of the abovementioned scheme had been suspended. In view of this situation, the members of ANCEJUBSUNAT filed the first amparo action. After several instances, the amparo action process ended on October 25, 1993 when the Supreme Court of Justice issued a judgment ordering the reincorporation of those people to the pension scheme under Decree Law 20530. The Constitutional Court ordered in turn to execute the judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice. 109. In view of the fact that said judgment was not being enforced, the members of ANCEJUBSUNAT filed a second amparo action, which was finally dealt with by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001. The Constitutional Court ordered again that the judgment issued by the Supreme Court, later relapsed in a guarantee proceeding, should be complied with, reinstating the petitioners to the pension scheme under Decree Law 20530. 110. The Commission observes that it has been more than 23 years since the judgment dated October 25, 1993 issued by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the IACHR insists that there is no controversy between the parties around the fact that the judgment execution process is still open to the date of approval of this Report. 111. The Commission sums up that throughout this long judgment execution process there have been numerous controversies for which the judicial authorities have been unable to find a final resolution for more than two decades. Thus, after the ruling issued by the Constitutional Court in June 1996, and throughout 1997 and 1998, different judicial authorities made pronouncements and nullified pronouncements on whether payments should be made by SUNAT [National Tax Administration Superintendence] or MEF [Ministry of Economy and Finance]. Later on, between 1998 and 2001 – with a second amparo action – the judicial authorities debated over whether each member of ANCEJUB-SUNAT had to bring an individual administrative and judicial claim before the courts in order to determine the concrete implications of the Supreme Court ruling for each person. It was as late as 2002, nine years after the original judgment, when the case was referred back to the execution stage and both SUNAT and MEF were repeatedly urged to be in compliance. By this time, the debate focused on identifying the individual members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT, an issue that was not solved then by the judicial authorities in the execution process. That year, SUNAT issued a resolution stating that there is no difference between the amounts derived from the judgment of the Supreme Court and the amounts the petitioners had been receiving, and therefore no reimbursement was necessary. In September 2002, this situation led to the judicial authorities to appoint an accounting expert to settle the accrued payments owed to each member of the association, including the amounts corresponding to the pensions and the reimbursements for the amounts not received as a consequence of the application of Decree Law No. 673. 112. As from that point in time to date, 16 years, there have been multiple expert reports but none of them has received final approval from the judicial authorities in charge of the judgment execution process. In this 16-year lapse, there have been periods of significant inaction and the process has faced logistic obstacles and limitations to the institutional capacity to deal with expert reports, which have been acknowledged by the Expert Report Technical Team of the Supreme Court. 158 Report of the Ombudsperson's Office No. 19, Ombudsperson's Office, The State Administration's Failure to Comply with Judgments. October 1998. 23