5 time spent working in an entity of the State, given the unemployment benefits granted by the Ministry of Health." 12. María Elena Loayza Tamayo explained that she was eligible for two pensions because she had retired from the Ministry of Health and, following that retirement, she had initiated a second period of employment as a teacher. She therefore said that "she [was] eligible for a fair retirement because [… she had] worked since 1990 under the system of law 19,990." She also pointed out that "the new law 19,990 states that [workers must] be 65 years old in order to retire, and that [their pension would depend] on the contribution […] made to build up a retirement fund; [and] it should be understood that if contributions have not been paid in, then those particular years of service will not be figured in for retirement, which would detract from the benefits when [she] retires at the age of 65." María Elena Loayza Tamayo added that "the general rule is to avoid the perception that anyone is receiving more than one government pension, except for the case of teachers, who in Peru may hold two different kinds of job, both in the administrative area and in teaching." 13. That the Commission asked that, "the years that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo was in detention be included [and] that this factor not […] injure her pension benefits." It also stated, "...given that the victim has described three jobs she held at the time she was seized, [the] State [should] describe how it will ensure her right to retirement with regard to this, because it is quite clear that the unemployment pension from the Ministry of Health has nothing to do with what is being discussed at this point." 14. That with regard to this obligation, the Memorandum of the Meeting (supra Having seen no. 12) says, "...the State should inform Mrs. Loayza Tamayo about actions taken to comply with this point at the meeting that will take place in the city of Lima, Peru two months from today [February 1, 2008]." * * * 15. That with regard to the adoption of all measures of domestic law to ensure that no adverse decision delivered in proceedings against Mrs. Loayza Tamayo in the civil courts has any legal effects whatsoever, the State noted that it had already submitted "certifications from the offices of police records, criminal records and judicial records, giving reliable assurance that neither the police department, the criminal department nor the courts has any provision [or] administrative record that would circumscribe her rights." 16. That in this regard, the representative of the victim asked that "the State specify whether an administrative record has this legal effect and guarantees the right of María Elena Loayza […] not to suffer any legal consequences from the judgment delivered against her in the regular courts." The Commission made no comments in this regard. 17. That according to the Memorandum of the Meeting (supra Having seen no. 12) the State agreed "to take all necessary steps to obtain judicial documentation or an order from the competent courts asking government offices to remove all criminal