f) Two of the victims filed applications for amparo against the courts to try and reverse the judicial rulings. According to an attachment provided by the State concerning an SBS report, “it is to be expect that these applications will be dismissed,” because this is what occurred in similar cases of other SBS pensioners. 24. As established in the judgment, one of the disputes between the parties related to whether the pensions of the five pensioners should be aligned with the salary of an official subject to the public sector regime, as the State argued, or with that of an active SBS official (subject to the private sector regime), as the representatives and the Commission maintained.34 To declare that Articles 21 and 25 of the American Convention had been violated, the Inter-American Court based itself on Peru’s non-compliance with the final judgments at the domestic level of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court of Peru ordering that the victims should be paid their pensions as they had been paid prior to the arbitrary reduction in 1992; in other words, aligning them with the salary received by active SBS officials, subject to the private sector regime.35 In its judgment, the Inter-American Court did not deliver an opinion concerning which interpretation was appropriate for the alignment of the pensions; instead, it declared that Peru was responsible for violating the right to property to the detriment of the five victims in this case, based on the fact that, for years, the State had failed to comply with the said domestic judgments that decided the applications for protective measures filed by the five victims. The Inter-American concluded that, “a right protected by the [said] judgments was constituted to the benefit of the pensioners, and when this was disregarded by the State, it affected their patrimony, violating Article 21 of the Convention.”36 25. Peru argued that, if the measure of reparation ordered in the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment related to determination of damage, this claim was not admitted opportunely by the Court and that, in any case, the only entity legally entitled to file an action is the victim (supra twentieth considering paragraph). For his part, at the private hearing on monitoring compliance with judgment,37 the representative affirmed that this measure ordered the State to ensure that the domestic courts decide “the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property, the damage, the consequential damage, and the loss of earning, among other aspects.” In this regard, the Court considers it necessary to recall that, in his pleadings and motions brief, the representative of the victims requested, in addition to “reinstatement of the enjoyment of [their] violated pension rights,” that “reparation be made for the damage suffered by the victims,” requesting the Court to determine “the exact amount of the damage.”38 of the Supreme Court of Justice of November 17, 2009, in the case of Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of monitoring compliance with judgment, tome V, folios 1336 a 1343), and judgment of the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of August 14, 2008, in the case of Reymert Bartra (file of monitoring compliance with judgment, tome IV, folios 997 a 1003). 34 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, paras. 104 and 106. 35 In addition, the Court recognized that the regulation under which the five pensioners would receive a pension equal to that of active personnel was ambiguous. Nevertheless, at the same time, it observed that “although the adjustable pension could have been established aligned with the salary received by an official subject to the public regime of a similar level or category to that of the alleged victims, when the SBS employees were transferred to the private sector regime (1981) this was not interpreted in this way by the State authorities. Moreover, it was the State itself that, when the alleged victims opted for the pension regime under Decree Law No. 20530, recognized to them, by way of administrative decisions, a pension amount that could be aligned based on the salary of an active SBS official.” Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 115. 36 Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 115. 37 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, twentyseventh considering paragraph. 38 Pleadings and motions brief of the victims’ representative of March 5, 2002 (merits file, tome I, folios 205 and 208). 11