46. On May 30, 2002 the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima issued a resolution pointing out that SUNAT “has failed to attach a suitable document as proof of compliance (…) despite the time elapsed”43. Consequently, it ordered SUNAT to comply with the resolution issued in October 1993 by the Supreme Court44. On the next day, SUNAT submitted a writ declaring their compliance45. SUNAT submitted the resolutions “referring to the individuals comprised by the effects of the final supreme order issued on October 25, 1993, and they are no other than the 11 individuals accredited as members of ANCEJUB at the time when the petition was filed”46. IACHR does not have information on whether SUNAT did in effect comply with the pension rights of the 11 abovementioned individuals. 47. On June 24, 2002, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima issued a new resolution requiring the following of SUNAT and MEF: [the] payment of the corresponding pensions, adjusted according to [SUNAT] active public servants’ remunerations, plus the reinstated increases that they failed to receive as a consequence of the application of the abovementioned Third Temporary Provision of Legislative Decree [673] to all the members of the petitioning association [ANCEJUBSUNAT], credited as per legalized copy of the members’ book of records and the list of discounts for discharged staff from [SUNAT]”, under penalty [of law]47. 48. On July 8, 2002, SUNAT issued Resolution N°042-2002-SUNAT establishing the following: Article 1.- Order that, as from August 2002, and in compliance with the final supreme order issued on October 25, 1993, with the resolution issued by the Constitutional Court on May 10, 2001, with the order issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima, and pursuant to the provisions set forth in Law N°27719, SUNAT assumes payment of discharge and retirement pensions to the former public servants listed in the documents attached to this Resolution, according to the amounts detailed therein. Article 2.- Determine that, as long as there is no difference in the pension amounts referred to in the previous article and the amounts said former public servants have been receiving from the Ministry of Economy y Finance, there shall be no reimbursement to pay in their favor.”48 49. On August 1, 2002, ANCEJUB-SUNAT requested that the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima “apply the penalty of law as prescribed, ordering that certified copies are produced so that the Attorney’s Office proceeds to prosecute the public officials of [SUNAT] for disobeying authority and other concurrent offenses.”49 50. On September 23, 2002, the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima resolved as follows: 43 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 30, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 44 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 30, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 45 Judgment compliance writ filed by SUNAT before the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 31, 2002 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 46 Judgment compliance writ filed by SUNAT before the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on May 31, 2002 (Attached to the State’s writ dated May 27, 2005). 47 Resolution issued by the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on June 24, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 48 Resolution issued by the Associate Superintendence N°042-2002/SUNAT on July 8, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 1, 2009). 49 Writ from ANCEJUB-SUNAT addressed to the 63rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima dated August 1, 2002 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated June 30, 2003). 9