5 JURISDICTION 16. The Court has jurisdiction to hear this case in the terms of Article 62(3) of the American Convention, as Peru is a State Party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, and recognized the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. IV ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY 1. Acknowledgment of the State and comments of the parties 17. The Tribunal observes that this case relates to the retroactive effects of the application of a law (Law Decree 25876) to the detriment of the alleged victims. The State indicated that, “based on the provisions of Law Decree 25876, [the Water Utility and Sewage Services Company of Lima (hereinafter SEDAPAL, as per its Spanish acronym)] opted to:” i) lower the remunerations of the alleged victims, ii) “apply the reduction of remunerations [...] to [certain] remunerations that had already been paid,” and ii) “as of July 1992, not apply the monthly increase of remunerations.” The foregoing effects came about as a consequence of the derogation of a salary adjustment system called “salary scales.” 18. Moreover, the Tribunal notes that in the context of the proceeding before the Inter-American Commission since April 18, 2002, the State has acknowledged its international responsibility in the following terms: In the analysis on constitutional norms [...], it is noted that it would only be possible for a law to stipulate its entrance into force a date after the day following the law’s publication in the Official Gazette. A law shall never stipulate entrance into force on a date prior to the aforementioned document [...] With regard to this, the Peruvian State acknowledges its international responsibility for affecting the right to judicial protection established in Article 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, taking into account that the judicial authorities should have at that time ruled, through an effective remedy, in favor of the fundamental rights and principles recognized in the Political Constitution of Peru, which, according to the domestic law, takes precedence over any other subordinate laws.10 19. Before the Court, the State repeated its recognition of international responsibility “for the retroactive application of Law [Decree] No. 25876 and for the lack of judicial protection in this situation.” It also indicated that “THERE IS NO DISPUTE between the facts alleged” by the alleged victims and “the facts recognized by Peru in the present case.” Likewise, the State indicated that “[its] recognition does not imply acceptance of the totality of the arguments presented by the alleged victims with regard to the amount of pecuniary damage,” and “therefore the [...] Court should rule exclusively and finally on the [aforementioned] amount of reparations [...] for the deduction of the raises granted through the application of the salary scales.” In this way, the State highlighted that “THERE WAS ONLY A VIOLATION WITH REGARD TO THE 11 MONTHS (JANUARY TO NOVEMBER 1992) during which SEDAPAL deducted the raises granted through the application of the salary scales, given that from that time onward (as of 1993) [the National Development Corporation, (hereinafter CONADE, as per its Spanish acronym)] establish[ed] a new remunerative salary scale.” 20. The Commission “positively viewed the reiteration of the acknowledgment of international responsibility on the part of the Peruvian State,” noting that it “constitutes […] a positive step forward in this case.” It added that it “understands the State’s 10 Report No. 34-2002-JUS/CNDH-SE filed by the Peruvian State before the IACHR on April 23, 2002 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, appendix1, annex 16, folios 146 and 147).