14. Regarding Mr. Ipanaqué, the allegation was that he brought an action before the Court under his own name so that SUNAT was ordered to comply with the ruling dated October 1993. He pointed out that in March 1999 the judge hearing this issue required SUNAT to pay him his pension benefit, but that despite the final nature of the judgment, SUNAT failed to comply. 15. The petitioners alleged the violation of their right to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, given that the State failed to comply with its obligation to abide by the judicial judgments ordered so as to adjust pensions in favor of the alleged victims. Regarding private property rights, the petitioners alleged that failure to make the pension payments effective as per the final court judgment orders had affected their net worth. B. Position of the State 16. The State recognized the judgments issued by the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court in 1993, 1996 and 2001. It held that, notwithstanding that, it is not responsible for the violations alleged by the petitioners since each of the proceedings filed by alleged victims afforded them their judicial guarantees. 17. The State held that due process was followed throughout the amparo actions, given that petitioners were granted a judicial recourse to channel their claim. Also, it has been pointed out that said recourses followed proceedings in compliance with procedural rules, respectful of the principle of the right of appeal, right to defense and access to an impartial judge, among other rights. 18. The State held that in its ruling, the Supreme Court did not establish in what way the adjustment was supposed to be applied. In its report, dated June 2016, it indicated that as from 2003, SUNAT “reestablished pension payments (…) adjusted according to the compensations received by SUNAT workers subject to the public service scheme, pursuant to the rules and provisions of the pension scheme established by Decree Law 20530”. It added that “that is the framework within which the abovementioned pensions are being paid to this day.” 19. On the other hand, said report also recognized that enforcement of the judgment dated October 25, 1993, “has been filed before [and is currently at] the Second Civil Court of the Superior Appeals Court of Lima.” It added that “the delay to enforce the judgment dated October 25, 1993 is solely due to the dilatory actions interposed by the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff from SUNAT”. 20. The IACHR noted the fact that in prior reports the State held that the delay in enforcing the judgment is not due to arbitrary actions on the part of the judicial authorities but to the right to defense and contesting exercised both by SUNAT and the alleged victims, since “the Supreme Court of Peru failed to establish the way in which the pension adjustment is to be calculated, and only ruled on the right to said pension”. 21. Additionally, the State indicated that after 2006 the petitioners stopped acting proactively in the judgment execution stage and refused to pay for the fees corresponding to the expert appointed to calculate the pension amounts. It added that the petitioners also filed untimely recourses and repeatedly made requests for copies from the competent court, which contributed to delays in the process. 22. Regarding Mr. Rafael Ipanaqué’s case, the State requested the case file, since it considered that the alleged facts of the case were circumscribed to Case 12,701. 3