petitioners, these decisions were based on grounds that the amparo decision had merely a declarative effect2. 25. The petitioners added that the Association filed an amparo petition challenging the decisions and on May 10, 2001, the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the petitioners reversing the decisions of the Superior Court and ordering that the case be returned to the execution of judgment stage. The Court’s action reaffirmed the decision issued by the Provisional Court on January 21, 1997. 26. The petitioners pointed out that in enforcing the decision, on April 11, 2002, the Sixty-third Specialized Civil Court in Lima issued a ruling ordering that SUNAT and the Ministry of Economy and Finance be required to comply in full with the judgment of the Constitutional Court within a period of 10 days. The petitioners added that this order was reiterated on May 30 and on June 24, 2002. 27. The petitioners stated that, at their request and in light of the fact that the judgment was not being enforced, on September 25, 2002, the Court itself ordered the Public Ministry to oversee the enforcement of the judgment and the Congress to denounce the civil 2 The annexes supplied by the petitioners indicate that on August 27, 1998, in the framework of the process of enforcement of judgment, the Transitional Corporatist Public Law Chamber ruled that it was the Association that had lodged the complaint without identifying its members. The Court also pointed out that, although the right to receive a retirement pension or severance payment had been established by Decree Law 20.530, and that the reinstatement of that right had been ordered, including the adjustment based on the salary scale of SUNAT employees in active service, as well as payment of the increases they had never perceived, in order to make the enforcement of judgment possible (sic) “first of all, it should be borne in mind that the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice is declarative in nature and constitutes res judicata in the sense that restoring the situation to what it was before the complaint was lodged, rules it inapplicable and reinstates the rights derived from the provisions of the Third Transitional Provision of Legislative decree 673, that is, on the limits of transferring to the Ministry of Economy and Finance the obligation to pay the pensions. Second, although it is true that the action has been assigned by judicial decree to the Ministry of Economy and Finance and to the National Superintendence for Tax Administration, these agencies have not been sued directly; however, because they are involved in enforcing the law, they bear responsibility for its impact as, at the opportune time, so will the Pension Normalization Office because of the provisions of Decree Law 817 which approves the Pension System Law under State oversight and which goes into force on April 28, 1996. With this precedent, as the enforcement of judgment in this case proceeds, it is necessary for each member of the petitioning association, duly identified, to begin, at the administrative entity which holds the individual’s pension records, the appropriate proceedings established by law to adjust settlement payments and that will fully comply with their rights which are jurisdictionally recognized by this court.” This decision vacated the ruling that ordered the Ministry of Economy and Finance to enforce the judgment. 13