IV. PROVEN FACTS A. About the situation of the alleged victims and the applicable legal framework 23. The IACHR has observed that there is no controversy regarding the fact that the members of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff from SUNAT (ANCEJUB-SUNAT) were included in the retirement regime as per Decree Law 20530 in 1991. Also, the members of the abovementioned Association received their pensions pursuant to said Decree until September 24, 1991, when Legislative Decree 673 was issued. Below, the Commission presents some of the contents of the most relevant rules and provisions. 24. Decree Law 20530 – known as the Pensions and Compensation Regime for Civil Service provided to the State, and supplemented by the Eighth Temporary Provision of the Political Constitution 1979- established the right to progressive pension adjustments for discharged staff with more than 20 years of service, under the following terms: EIGHTH.- The pensions for discharged staff members with more than twenty years of service and staff retired from the public administration, not included in the Social Security regime in Peru or in other special regimes shall be progressively adjusted according to the remuneration corresponding to active public servants in the respective categories, for a term of ten fiscal years, as from January 1, 1980, and should therefore be duly assigned in the corresponding items of the National Budget3. 25. The abovementioned constitutional provision was enforced through Decree Law 23495 dated November 20, 1982 and its implementing regulations, establishing the right to automatic and progressive adjustment in favor of the beneficiaries of Decree Law 20530: (…) any increase after the adjustment that is granted to active public servants who have a similar position to the last one the discharged or retired staff member had shall trigger an increase in the pension to the same amount obtained by the active public servant 4. 26. There is no controversy between the parties regarding the fact that the payment to the alleged victims of adjusted pensions as per Decree Law 20530, supplemented by the abovementioned regulations, was suspended through Legislative Decree 673. In this scenario, the first amparo action was filed, and a final ruling was issued. The claim is that this final ruling was not complied with in the Case in question, as described below. B. About the first amparo action 27. On December 19, 1991, ANCEJUB-SUNAT filed an amparo action before the Specialized Examining Magistrate in the First Instance Civil Court against the State in order to contest Legislative Decree 673 and request that its members were reincorporated to the pension scheme as per Decree Law 205305. 28. On February 7, 1992, the Fifth Civil Court of Lima declared that the amparo action was inadmissible, since it was deemed untimely, and declared that the petitioners were entitled to seek remedy through the corresponding instance6. 3 Political Constitution of the Republic of Peru, 1979. 4 Law 23495. Enacted on November 20, 1982. Amparo action filed before the Fifth Civil Court of Lima on December 19, 1991 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 5 6 Judgment issued by the Fifth Civil Court on February 7, 1992 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 3, 1998). 4