15 Power of March 30, 2001, […] the company failed to pay to the SUNAT both the debt contracted for the […] [illegal] administration of the State and of the [brothers] Winter, as well as also the part of the running debt generated during the new administration, because the funds did not exist in the company.” Regarding this point, the representatives pointed out that “respecting the [tax] period 2001-2003, [the State] must abstain from charging moratorium interest and fines connected with the tax debt […], each time that said debt could not be paid timely as a direct consequence of the lack of fulfillment on the part of the State.” 32. That specifically in relation to the resolution of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, Mr. Ivcher indicated that “the General Law of Arbitration then current did not permit the review of the merits of the controversy at the judicial headquarters [, in a way that at that moment] he could not challenge the arbitral award.” Also, the representatives highlighted that “of the 10 magistrate judges that heard this action at distinct instances, only 3 have declared a decision regarding the merits of the matter (1 Founded, 1 Unfounded [and] 1 Null), while 7 have resolved for reasons of form to declare it Inadmissible, every time that being understood as the only way that it could be resolved is if the collection of the taxes in question damaged or breached that ordered in the [eighth] operative paragraph of the [J]udgment […] of the Inter-American Court.” Therefore, the representatives concluded that “both the Arbitral Tribunal as well as the Constitutional Tribunal [have] referr[ed] to formal aspects of the controversy without entering into a discussion of the merits, which evidences that the [P]eruvian State does not have the capacity to execute the [J]udgment of the [Inter-American Court] in its [eighth] operative paragraph.” The representatives indicated that “[i]t is unacceptable that on one hand the State tries to distinguish between a natural person and a legal entity in order to deny the right of the execution of the judgment regarding the replacement of the previous state of divestment […], and on the other, to deny this distinction in order to affirm that the tax debts are charged independently of the natural persons that make up the legal entity, even though this had been usurped by the State itself.” 33. That the Commission “consider[ed] it positive that the State had fulfilled the payment of the sum established in the […] arbitral award [respecting] the compensation of dividends and pending payments in favor of Mr. Ivcher.” 34. That also, the Commission “manifest[ed] its special worry for the fact that the Peruvian State tried to collect the taxes generated during the time in that [the company] was in the hands of the Winters and of the State,” so that this “openly contradicts the spirit of the Judgment of the Court respecting the violation of the right of property and of freedom of expression of the harmed party.” Also, the Commission pointed out that “the express reference that the Court made to facilitate the ‘conditions’ of use and enjoyment of the rights of Mr. Ivcher as a majority shareholder implies that these rights be returned to the mentioned company without demanding the payment for the taxes that had been generated during the per[i]od that it was under the control of the Peruvian State itself and of the minority shareholders.” “If the company, at this moment, was up to date with the payment of the taxes, [t]his must be the condition in that it was returned to Mr. Ivcher Bronstein, having therefore paid any tax debts that had been generated during [said] period.” Also, the Commission considered that it must “identify if the rejection of the period of tax release was for a lack of jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal, or was for a lack of merit in the substance[, because] if it was the first, […] such res judicata did not exist that the State is alleging about the subject matter of the tax release, [so that] it h[ad] not been resolved regarding the substance.” (Therefore, the Commission requested the Court that “it