83. On December 2nd, 2009, ANCEJUB-SUNAT brought an appeal before the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, requesting that the petition be declared admissible111. 84. On July 22, 2010, the Permanent Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru confirmed the resolution dated September 28, 2009 that declared the amparo action unfounded112. The Chamber considered the following: [upon] review of the court records, it becomes apparent that we are before a resolution issued in the execution stage, which declares the appealed resolution null and void, and orders the a quo to resume the contested procedure by ordering a new accounting expert report (…) since the debate around the items and scope comprised within the execution of the final supreme order (…) has not been settled, pending completion of the new expert review (…) the appellant has the possibility of challenging it by means of an appeal to a higher court, as well as making observations as they see fit (…) therefore, we are not facing a final and permanent resolution, a prerequisite that would call for the analysis of the disputed issue (…), and the opposite would entail turning the amparo action into a third national supra-instance113. 85. On August 9, 2011, the Constitutional Court declared the constitutional remedy action brought before the Court by ANCEJUB-SUNAT against the judgment dated July 2010 unfounded114. The Court stated the following: [T]he ‘non pensionable’ nature that paragraph c) of Article 3 in Legislative Decree N°673 gives to the abovementioned ‘higher remuneration’ pursuant to paragraphs a) and b) of said Article was not contested on constitutionality grounds, nor was the consequent inapplicability of the Supreme Court ruling execution. Therefore (…) the abovementioned judgment only disregards application of the Third Temporary Provision of the Decree to the petitioner association’s members (…). (…) Thus, the petition in question would entail adjusting the petitioners’ members’ pensions against the remunerations of the SUNAT staff comprised within the private labor regime, which would be contrary to the jurisprudence based on numerous rulings issued by this Court, pursuant to which ‘the adjustment the pensioners are entitled to according to the regime set forth in Decree Law N°20530 should be based on the remuneration corresponding to active public officials or public servants who have the same hierarchical level, category or labor regime as the pensioner at the time he or she stopped in that position; the adjustment is not applicable, however, between different pension schemes, or in connection with workers that to this date are in a private labor regime (…). (…) the resolution issued by the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima dated July 24, 2006 (…), contrary to the appellants' allegations, does not construe the facts of the case in an arbitrary or restrictive way, nor does it repeal the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on October 25, 1993 (…) and therefore, since the fundamental rights invoked by the appellant have not been affected, the petition is dismissed.”115 111 Appeal action interposed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on December 2nd, 2009 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 17, 2010). 112 Judgment issued by the Permanent Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on July 22, 2010 (Attached to the State’s writ dated January 6, 2010). 113 Judgment issued by the Permanent Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on July 22, 2010 (Attached to the State’s writ dated January 6, 2010). 114 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on August 9, 2011(Attached to the State’s writ dated August 17, 2011). 115 Judgment issued by the Constitutional Court on August 9, 2011 (Attached to the State’s writ dated August 17, 2011). 17