SBS adopted decisions in order to comply with the provisions of these judgments of the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice;24 b) In 1998 and in 2000, Peru’s Constitutional Court delivered judgments regarding the compliance actions filed by the victims demanding the execution of the 1995 decisions of the SBS ordering the reimbursement and alignment of their pensions as previously ordered by the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice.25 A compliance action “seeks to give effect to the provisions of a law or an administrative act with which an officer or authority is unwilling to comply.”26 Thus, the Constitutional Court merely ordered compliance with the 1995 administrative decisions of the SBS in favor of the pensioners, to the extent that “their nullity had not been decided judicially.” The SBS adopted the provisions of those judgments, as well as other judicial admonitions, in 2002 decisions;27 c) In June 2005, two years and four months after the Inter-American Court had delivered its judgment in this case, the SBS filed actions for declaration of nullity before the Special Administrative Law Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice against its own 1995 and 2002 decisions, issued in implementation of the above-mentioned judgments of the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court, respectively.28 In the context of these administrative proceedings, the courts handed down rulings with regard to four of the victims, granting the precautionary measure requested by the SBS, ordering that, each month, the said entity deposit in the Banco de la Nación, the increase for alignment ordered in the contested decisions. In the case of the victim Carlos Torres Benvenuto, the precautionary measure requested by the SBS was denied because a judgment of the Transitory Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared it inadmissible;29 d) Regarding the said actions for declaration of nullity filed by the SBS, the victims filed the objection of res judicata. The Special Administrative Law Chamber and, subsequently, the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, considered that this objection could not be invoked against the 1994 judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice, the 1998 and 2000 judgments of the Constitutional decision of the First Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of December 30, 1993, in the case of Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra (file of attachments to the application, attachment 47, folios 185 a 186). 24 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 88(k). 25 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 88(l). 26 Cf. Laws Nos. 23506 and 25398 and article 200(6) of the Constitution, cited in the judgments of the Constitutional Court of Peru of August 3, 2000, in relation to the compliance actions filed by Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro and Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of attachments to the application, attachments 54, 55 and 58, folios 202 to 208 and 214 to 215). 27 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs, supra note 20, para. 88(n). 28 The main objective of the SBS was to quash the administrative acts of 1995 and 2002. The former aligned the retirement pension of the victims based on the salary paid to employees of the Superintendence of Banking and Insurance who were subject to the private sector regime. The latter ordered compliance with the 1995 decisions. An additional objective was for each pensioner to return the sums of money paid in excess, owing to the “undue increase.” Cf. File of attachments to the representative’s brief of July 15, 2005 (Reymert Bartra, folios 75 to 104; Carlos Torres Benvenuto, folios 105 to 134; Guillermo Álvarez Hernández folios 135 to 163, and Javier Mujica Ruiz Huidobro, folios 164 to 194). Also, with regard to Sara Elena Castro Remy, widow of Gamarra, file of monitoring compliance with judgment, folios 1005 and 1006. 29 The Transitory Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic decided this the basis that “it appears, prima facie, that the administrative decisions, whose suspension is requested, as a precautionary measure, are not the result of actions that correspond to the Superintendence of Banking and Insurance, but administrative decisions to comply with a court order that has become res judicata and, based on a constitutional principle, is immutable […]” (file of monitoring compliance with judgment, tome IV, folio 836). 9