39. On January 21, 1999, the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law confirmed the resolution issued by the First Temporary Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law26. C. About the second amparo action 40. In April 1999, ANCEJUB-SUNAT filed an amparo action against the magistrates in the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law27. In their amparo action, they pointed out that the prior resolutions had gravely affected their constitutional entitlement to judicial protection and their right to an adjusted pension28. Consequently, they requested “that the case be reinstated to its judgment execution state, and that the judicial body complies with the final supreme order dated October 25, 1993, by enforcing it.”29 41. On November 25, 1999, the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law declared that the recourse was inadmissible30. The Chamber considered the following: “[the contested resolutions] do not affect rights that are at the constitutional level for any of the members of the petitioning association; on the contrary, since it protects their rights regarding labor actions referring to remuneration it so happens that for the execution of said judgment, the proposed execution requested by the petitioner is not admissible, given that the claim was filed without determining or identifying its individual members. On the other hand, the action was addressed generically against the State (…), which means that in order to make the execution viable it is necessary for (…) each of the unionized members to be duly identified as an individual, and to instrument the relevant processes before the administrative agency that keeps their pension records, so that they suitably enable the corresponding settlement adjustments in order to establish the correct amounts and proceed to full enforcement of their jurisdictionally recognized rights (…), this not being the suitable action to that end.”31 42. On April 6, 2000, in view of the appeal filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT, the Supreme Attorney for the Administrative Jurisdiction entered a legal opinion before the Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru32. The Attorney considered that the appealed resolution should be revoked and the action declared admissible under the following terms: [the] amparo action is admissible in case of violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right, either by action or omission, of binding acts; that with the contested resolutions, the alleged constitutional rights would be violated (…) since the fact that it had been brought before the Court by the association instead of each of its members represented as a whole 26 Resolution issued by the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law on January 21, 1999 (Attached to the initial petition dated November 11, 1998). 27 Amparo action filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT in April 1999 before the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law (Attached to the initial petition dated November 11, 1998). 28 Amparo action filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT in April 1999 before the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law (Attached to the initial petition dated November 11, 1998). 29 Amparo action filed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT in April 1999 before the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law (Attached to the initial petition dated November 11, 1998). 30 Resolution issued by the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law on November 25, 1999 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 31 Resolution issued by the Temporary Corporate Chamber Specializing in Public Law on November 25, 1999 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 32 Legal opinion 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). 7