did not perceive. The petitioners also alleged that, within the framework of the process to enforce judgments, the judicial authorities were accomplices in the failure to enforce the judgment. 3. For its part, the Peruvian State argued that, in accordance with the law and the constitution in force, the alleged victims did not qualify for adjustments of pension based on the criteria used for their demand. The State also argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted because the process was still in the enforcement of judgment stage where the victims had access to the appropriate mechanisms. The State also argued that the petition failed to meet the six-month filing deadline, counting from the date the sentence was issued on October 25, 1993, which, the State alleged, had not been served. Therefore, the State requested that the Commission rule the petition inadmissible. 4. After examining the position of the parties in light of the admissibility requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, the Commission concluded that it was competent to hear the complaint lodged and that the petition was admissible based on the alleged violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 21, 8 y 25 of the American Convention with regard to the general obligations established in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument. The Commission also concluded that the petition was inadmissible with regard to the alleged violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, and of Article 9 of the Protocol of San Salvador. Therefore, the Commission decided to notify the parties, to make public this Admissibility Report and to include it in its Annual Report. II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. Due to the fact that the Commission decided to group together petitions 965/98, 638/03 and 1044/04, in May 2007 and in August 2007, processing before the Commission will be described separately for each petition until the date in which the parties were notified of the decision to group the petitions together. Processing of Petition 965/98 6. The initial petition was received on November 11, 1998. On November 11, 1999 and on June 30, 2003, the petitioners submitted additional information. On May 8, 2006, the Commission forwarded the relevant sections of the petition to the State and, in accordance with Article 30.3 of the Rules of Procedure, requested that the State submit a response within two months. 2