35 135. In addition, according to the facts of the case, the sale contract between Tintaya S.A. and Magma Copper Corporation expressly stated that Tintaya S.A. had no retirees or pensioners on the company’s account, although it did refer to litigation involving two company officials. The contract also stipulated that, “if any unregistered liabilities or contingencies should arise, derived from facts prior to the closing date [November 29, 1994], these “[would] be assumed by the vendor […]” (supra paras. 59). The State never assumed these liabilities but, on the contrary, used the uncertainty it had created to disregard a legitimately acquired and judicially confirmed right to a pension, arguing that the judicial rulings and proceedings were aimed at ensuring that the private company complied with the pension payments. Even at the time of the sale, when the contentious-administrative process initiated by Tintaya S.A. to declare the victim’s incorporation into the Decree Law No. 205030 system unlawful was under way, the State had already been legally vanquished in the amparo ruling of 1993. Nor were the pension payments made after the contentious-administrative process concluded in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, or after the decision of the Constitutional Court in 1999, which also ordered the payment of his pension. 136. At the same time, the State alleged that the judicial authority’s confusion in enforcing the domestic judgment was partly due to the fact that Mr. Muelle Flores “always insisted that the private company was the one obligated to pay his pension” and that, despite knowing that the MEF was responsible for the payments from 2002 (infra para. 138), he maintained his position of acting against the private company, omitting to request the summons of the MEF, as a result of which he was unable to “assert his rights” during the amparo proceeding or during the execution of the judgment process. The Court considers that the State not only failed to comply with the rulings of the Judiciary, but also failed to clarify its own obligations in order to protect the rights of the victim in the context of the privatization process undertaken by its own decision. The Court finds this last point noteworthy, given that, based on the legislation in force in 1996 and 2004, forwarded by the State, both the ONP, and subsequently the MEF,149 respectively, were the institutions responsible for the procedural representation of the State in judicial proceedings related to the Decree Law No. 20530 system of privatized entities.150 In this regard, the Court understands that the MEF should have attended the proceeding ex officio at the appropriate opportunity, pursuant to the existing legislation, as it effectively did following the resolution of July 30, 1996, in which the Administrative Chamber requested the attendance of the ONP at said proceeding (supra para. 70). Furthermore, the Court finds that it was the State itself, through its public institutions, which provided information to the victim that led him to consider that the private company was responsible for paying his pension. Indeed, both the ONP and the MEF received Mr. Muelle Flores’ notarized letters requesting information concerning the entity responsible for paying his pension, and both of these State institutions claimed that this responsibility did not fall on them, but on the company “that paid his pension” or the “Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya S.A.”, which no longer existed as such at that time. which, in principle, are not attributable to the State. The effects of the duties erga omnes of the States to respect and guarantee protection norms and to ensure the effectiveness of rights go beyond the relationship between their agents and the individuals under their jurisdiction, since they are embodied in the positive duty of the State to adopt such measures as may be necessary to ensure the effective protection of human rights in relationships between individuals. The assumptions of the State’s liability for the violation of rights enshrined in the Convention may include both the acts and the failure to act attributable to State bodies or officials, as well as the failure of the State to prevent third parties from impairing the juridical rights protected by human rights. Cf. Mutatis mutandis, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil. Judgment of July 4, 2006. Series C No. 149, paras. 85 and 86. 149 Cf. Article 1 of Law No. 28115 entitled “Law that expands and specifies the scope of Law N°27719 “Law of recognition, declaration and qualification of pension rights legally acquired under Decree Law N°20530 with its amendments and supplementary regulations”, published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on December 6, 2003 (evidence file, folio 1694). 150 As of 1996, and pursuant to Legislative Decree No. 817, the Pension Standardization Office (ONP) was the State body responsible for defending the State’s interests in all judicial proceedings related to the application of pension rights (supra para. 70).