the Peruvian State in connection with admissibility requirements”, the decision was to defer the admissibility analysis until the substantial resolution was issued. 7. In that communication, the Commission gave the petitioner a deadline for his observations as per Article 38.1 in its Regulations then in force. The petitioner submitted his observations on December 10, 2001. Said communication was presented before the State with a term of two months to submit its observations. On March 7, 2002, the State submitted its observations. Later on, both parties submitted communications, which were duly presented. 8. Before the drafting of this Report, the Commission realized that Mr. Ipanaqué Centeno was on the list of alleged victims in Case 12,701 and that he was expressly mentioned in Admissibility Report No. 21/09. Also, the Commission confirmed that the objet in the separate petition made by Mr. Ipanaqué Centeno was the same as the object in the admitted case, and therefore informed the parties that the file in Case 12.382 became part of the file in Case 12,701, and that the situation of Mr. Ipanaqué Centeno would be analyzed in this Report referring to beneficiaries of the judgment presumably not complied with, in the understanding that Mr. Ipanaqué Centeno case was already under the admissibility decision in the framework of Case 12,701. III. POSITION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the petitioners 9. The petitioners alleged that the State is intentionally responsible for failing to comply with a court judgment from the Supreme Court, dated October 1993, which recognized pension rights to 703 individuals. The detailed account of facts and proceedings is in the “Proven Facts” section. 10. The petitioners indicated that all of the alleged victims were workers at the Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas y de Administración Tributaria (National Tax Administration Superintendence, hereinafter “SUNAT” by its acronym in Spanish) during 1991. They stated they had been incorporated in the Retirement Regime by Decree Law 20530, which established that all pensions and compensations for civil servant services provided to the State had to be adjusted against the remunerations paid to active workers. 11. The petitioners declared that they enjoyed said pension system until September 24, 1991. They also pointed out that Legislative Decree 673 was issued on that date and, based on the Third Temporary Provision therein, application of Decree Law 20530 in their favor was suspended. 12. The petitioners declared that they applied for an amparo action [unconstitutionality recourse] in order to question the abovementioned decision, a remedy that was ultimately acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Justice. They indicated that in its ruling dated October 1993, the Supreme Court ordered that the alleged victims were reincorporated into the pension scheme as per Decree Law 20530. They pointed out that in June 1996, the Constitutional Court declared that the Supreme Court ruling constituted an enforceable, final and binding judicial mandate. 13. The petitioners added that, since said ruling was not executed by the judicial authorities, they applied for a second amparo action. They declared that in May 2001, the Constitutional Court ordered that SUNAT should comply with the ruling dated October 1993. They also stated that, despite that order, the Supreme Court ruling has not been executed to date. The petitioners added that even though it is true that SUNAT is paying the pensions, they are not in compliance with provisions pursuant to the ruling dated October 1993. They explained that it has not been taken into account that the abovementioned ruling declared the Third Temporary Provision in Legislative Degree 673 not applicable, and therefore the increases that were not made effective due to the application of the abovementioned provision, as well as other compensation items, should be paid. 2