since (…) the counsel representing the petitioners (…) has recently become [her] father’s lawyer”59. On November 26, 2003, the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima resolved that the Judge should continue hearing in the case60. 55. On April 21, 2004, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima requested that the parties “submit suitable documentation to determine full identification of all the people who, at the time when the action was set forth [December 19, 1991], were members of the petitioning association, and also inform the position, category or hierarchy they had, as well as the amount received by way of pension after retirement under the regime stipulated by Law 20530”61. 56. ANCEJUB-SUNAT issued a plea to nullify said resolution on the grounds of failure to comply with the submission requested on May 24, 200262. On the other hand, SUNAT declared before the Court that the records submitted before ANCEJUB SUNAT on May 24, 2002 cannot be considered since they were notarized 4 years after the action was filed on December 19, 1991, and demanded the plea to nullify be declared inadmissible63. 57. On May 5, 2005, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima issued a resolution rejecting the Expert Report issued and declared the observations submitted by SUNAT regarding said document admissible64. The Court stated the following: (…) it should be understood that the adjustment the pensioners are entitled to, as pensioners enjoying the right to an adjustable pension, should be adjusted according to the remuneration of officials or workers who are active in the Public Administration in the same hierarchical level or category that the pensioner had at the time when he or she stopped in the position, pursuant to Article 6 of Decree Law 20350, Article 5 of Law 23495 and Article 5 of Supreme Decree N°015-83-PCM. (…) in that sense, even though discharged and retired members of [SUNAT] staff do enjoy a renewable pension, it is also true that the claim to adjust their pensions according to the corresponding remuneration in the private labor regime is not admissible, given that pursuant to constitutional and statutory mandate, the adjustment of pensions under Decree Law 20530 (…) is incompatible with remunerations of active workers subject to the private labor regime. (…) [T]herefore, it is clear from reading the Expert Report that the court-appointed expert (…) has wrongfully applied a rule that is not applicable to discharged and retired staff from the petitioning association65. 58. On November 9, 2005 a new Expert Report66 was submitted. SUNAT presented observations against the expert opinion, whereas ANCEJUB-SUNAT was in agreement with the report and requested its approval67. 59 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on September 4, 2003 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 60 Resolution issued by la Sixth Civil Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on November 26, 2003 (Attached to the Petitioners’ writ dated February 4, 2005). 61 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on April 21, 2004 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 62 Plea to nullify filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 17, 2004 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 63 Acknowledgement of proper service issued by de la SUNAT and presented before the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on June 4, 2004 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 64 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 5, 2005 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 65 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 5, 2005 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 26, 2006). 26, 2006). 66 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). 11