would not constitute an obstacle in the execution of the judgment that gave rise to the original amparo action33. 43. On August 25, 2000, the Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru issued a resolution confirming the first instance court decision34. The Chamber stated that “the judgment issued in the amparo action process is limited to (…) the right to adjustment, but not the payment of the obligation itself.”35 It added that “the settlement has to be effected on a case by case basis, in favor of each of the discharged and retired individuals, and it has to be dealt with before the pertinent administrative entity.”36 44. On May 10, 2001, the Constitutional Court issued a judgment in connection with the extraordinary recourse submitted by ANCEJUB-SUNAT on August 25, 200037. The Constitutional Court decided to revoke said resolution, and declared that the resolution issued by the Court Specializing in Social Security Matters on January 21, 1997 was valid and in force38. The Constitutional Court explained the following: (…) no authority can nullify or abolish the effect of a resolution that has already been passed as a final decision, nor can they stop procedures that have already been initiated, or modify judgments or defer their execution; this is not being observed when [the Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru], through its resolutions contested on record, intends to nullify the resolution issued by the Court Specializing in Social Security Matters on January [21] [1997], which, in strict compliance with procedural rules, orders the final supreme order dated October [25] [1993] to be complied with (…) [The] final judgment giving rise to a guarantee action is a final resolution with the immutable force of res judicata; and in virtue of that, it has to be enforced in the terms contained in the resolution.”39 45. On March 25, 2002, the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima requested the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima to comply with the order issued by the Constitutional Court in its resolution dated May 10, 200140. On April 11, 2002, the Court “reinstated the case to the execution state ordering compliance with the final supreme order issued on October 25, 1993”41. It also urged the SUNAT and the MEF to abide by the resolution issued on May 10, 200142. 33 Judgment N°588-2000-MMP-FN-FSCA from the Supreme Attorney for the Administrative Jurisdiction dated April 6, 2000 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 34 Resolution issued by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on August 25, 2000 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 35 Resolution issued by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on August 25, 2000 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 36 Resolution issued by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Peru on August 25, 2000 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 37 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 38 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 39 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). Request made by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on March 25, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 40 41 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on April 11, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 42 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on April 11, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 8