56 structure, each has its own autonomous judicial representation, and this situation makes it necessary to take legal action against them expressly when they are attributed any conduct that is not in accordance with the law.” “It would be unacceptable to affirm that, because a claim had been filed against the […] Superintendency, the whole of the State of Peru was aware of the claims”; e) The five pensioners “filed applications for amparo against the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance, the effect of which is to restore matters to their status prior to the alleged violation of rights. At that time, it was considered that what was ordered had been complied with, as there was no ruling that ordered the payment of any specific amount”; f) The judgments corresponding to Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra did not determine the amount of the pensions that corresponded to them, so that there was “a difference of interpretation about the amount of the pension, an issue that can only be examined in the domestic jurisdiction and [in] the context of a judicial proceeding in which evidentiary mechanisms can be used, and not in an application for protective measures.” If the plaintiff considered that the pension he was paid was not the correct amount, he should have filed the respective judicial proceedings so that the exact amount of the pension could be determined; g) The three judgments of the Constitutional Court were delivered after the petition against Peru had been submitted to the Inter-American Commission, and were not filed against the MEF. “By filing these applications against a body that was inappropriate according to law [...] it made their execution impossible; the latter was facilitated by the recent annulment of Act 25792 [in 2002], immediately after which the [SBS] complied with the ruling, even though the plaintiffs did not have this right.” In the three compliance proceedings, the SBS was expressly cited and the MEF was not cited, “which was juridically impossible since it had not been a party to the first proceeding”; h) As a result of a legal error committed by the SBS – by issuing a decision, which exceeded its competence – based on compliance proceedings and the injunction to the officials of this institution, the pensions were paid, taking as a reference the salary of SBS employees who were under the private sector regime. However, the SBS has reserved “the right to act in accordance with the law” because the five pensioners or their heirs have received extremely high amounts for the concept of repayments, which did not correspond to them, since, in order to adjust their pension, an inappropriate salary reference was used; i) “As a result of the judicial rulings arising from applications for protective measures that have been executed[, …] the claimants are receiving a pension that does not correspond to them, considerably higher than other pensioners in the country, merely as a result of having resorted to an inappropriate procedure, in which there has been no ruling on merits with regard to the admissibility of the pension claimed, but only that it should continue, because it had been modified by law”;