24 88(i) The SBS only complied by reintegrating to the alleged victims the difference between the pension received and the equalized pension that they had been receiving: for April to October 1992, in the case of Reymert Bartra Vásquez, and for September and October 1992, in the case of the other four alleged victims41. 88(j) Several of the alleged victims filed criminal complaints against those they considered responsible for non-compliance with the judgments42. 88(k) In 1995, the SBS issued five decisions in order to comply with the provisions of the final judgments that decided the said applications for amparo. In these decisions, the SBS ordered the pensions of the alleged victims to be equalized on the basis of the remunerations that the active employees of the same or an equivalent category received when the salaries were readjusted, and also that the corresponding repayments should be made according to the calculations set out in the said decisions43. Moreover, article 2 of these decisions established that they should be transmitted to the MEF “for the relevant purposes.” The said decisions were not implemented44. administrative decision SBS No. 331-95 of May 4, 1995, with regard to Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of appendices to the application, appendix 52, folios 196 to 198). 41 Cf. application brief submitted by the Inter-American Commission (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, folio 21, para. 60); and brief on requests, arguments and evidence presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, folio 176). 42 Cf. decision of the Superior Criminal Prosecutor of the Office of the Public Prosecutor delivered on December 2, 1996, with regard to complaint No. 34-96 (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, appendix 3 of the brief on requests, arguments and evidence, folio 228); decision of the Attorney General delivered on June 27, 1997, with regard to file No. 001-97-D-SBS (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, appendix 4 of the brief on requests, arguments and evidence, folios 229 to 234); decision of the Judge del Thirtieth Criminal Court of Lima delivered on February 2, 1996 (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, appendix 5 of the brief on requests, arguments and evidence, folios 235 to 237); complaint of July 4, 1995, filed by Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro before the Comptroller General (file on merits and possible reparations, tome I, appendix 6 of the brief on requests, arguments and evidence, folios 238 to 242); and testimony provided to the Court by Guillermo Álvarez Hernández on September 3, 2002. 43 Cf. administrative decision SBS No. 283-95 of April 7, 1995, with regard to Carlos Torres Benvenuto (file of appendices to the application, appendix 50, folios 192 and 193); administrative decision SBS No. 330-95 of May 4, 1995, with regard to Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro (file of appendices to the application, appendix 51, folios 194 and 195); administrative decision SBS No. 331-95 of May 4, 1995, with regard to Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of appendices to the application, appendix 52, folios 196 to 198); administrative decision SBS No. 332-95 of May 4, 1995, with regard to Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (file of appendices to the application, appendix 53, folios 199 to 201); and administrative decision SBS No. 254-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Reymert Bartra Vásquez (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, appendix 6 of the communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, folios 991 to 994). 44 Cf. administrative decision SBS No. 250-2002 of March 12, 2002, with regard to Carlos Torres Benvenuto (file on merits and possible reparations, tome IV, appendix 6 of the communication of July 22, 2002, presented by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin, folios 975 to 978);