(...) the (court) pronounces on the request filed by the plaintiff (...) assuming that the statements by the defendant required to pay the pensions are completely true; and (...) without first determining whether the Magma Copper company did or did not take over the assets and liabilities of the initial defendant party, Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya, during the privatization process; without taking into account that if it had taken on said assets and liabilities, (...) it transfers said assets and liabilities to the buyers.60 43. The Division also maintained that the Court issued its resolution "without specifying the facts and corresponding legal provisions supporting that determination." 61 The Division added that the Court had violated the right to due substantiation of judicial resolutions and stressed that Mr. Muelle's retirement pension was at the judgment enforcement stage.62 44. The petitioner stated that on May 17, 2012 the 33rd Civil Court of Lima issued a resolution requiring the company to comply with the order given in the Supreme Court judgment of February 1993.63 The company filed an appeal against said resolution.64 45. On October 30, 2012, the 33rd Civil Court of Lima resolved to suspend enforcement of judgment pending a decision on the appeal filed by the company.65 On November 20, 2012, Mr. Muelle appealed against that resolution with respect to its suspension of the judgment enforcement process.66 Mr. Muelle argued that said decision impaired the res adjudicata status of the previous judgments granting him his pension rights, so that there could be no delaying of their enforcement.67 46. On October 10, 2013, the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Justice issued a resolution annulling the resolution of May 17, 2012 of the 33rd Civil Court of Lima.68 The Division stated the following: (...) it has not been accredited that the appellant company has the obligation to pay the pension rights claimed, because since its privatization the original purchaser did not take on that obligation (...). 9...) in addition (...), the pension rules [of Decree Law 20530] regulated State pensions and benefits financed with State resources (...). Accordingly, given that the appellant is now a private enterprise, it is not possible for it to take on a pension obligation because it does not administer pension funds and because, moreover, it did not take on the obligation. Rather the plaintiff's relations were with the State (...).69 60 Resolution No. 6 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima of April 13, 2011. Attached to the petitioner's communication of July 18, 2011. 61 Resolution No. 6 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima of April 13, 2011. Attached to the petitioner's communication of July 18, 2011. 62 Resolution No. 6 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Lima of April 13, 2011. Attached to the petitioner's communication of July 18, 2011. 63 Petitioner’s communication of September 8, 2012. 64 Petitioner’s communication of June 10, 2013. State’s communication of November 12, 2012. 65 Resolution of the 38th Civil Court of Lima of October 30, 2012. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 66 Complaint by Oscar Muelle, November 20, 2012. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 67 Complaint by Oscar Muelle, November 20, 2012. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 68 Resolution No. 8 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Justice of October 10, 2013. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 69 Resolution No. 8 of the Second Civil Division of the Superior Court of Justice of October 10, 2013. Attached to the State’s communication of November 20, 2013. 9