16 payments; criminal proceedings were filed, as a result of which the SBS issued decisions that it did not fulfill. An appeal was filed before the Constitutional Court, which decided in his favor; recourse was had to the Office of the Ombudsman, which exhorted the Superintendent to comply with the judgments, but the latter did not do so. The Lawyers Professional Association was consulted as to whether what was happening was permitted and it upheld the pensioners, even the Minister of Economy and Finance himself sent a letter to the Superintendent, Dr. Puerta Barrea, urging him to comply with the judgments to avoid criminal proceedings. The witness has spoken directly with the different Superintendents, he has issued notarized letters trying to overcome the difficulties and reach an agreement, even losing some rights, but everything has been in vain. There have also been complaints to the press and protest activities in the entrance to the SBS, but there has been no response. In 1992, legal proceedings were filed against the SBS, which was the institution responsible for paying the pensions at that time. A few months later, in October 1992, Decree Law No. 25792 was promulgated. Since then, the SBS no longer pays the pension. The witness and the other pensioners were not a “burden” on the National Treasury, because they had their own income from the SBS pension fund. Then, as of November 1992, the Ministry of Economy and Finance (hereinafter “the MEF”) paid the pensions until March 2002, when article 5 of the said Decree Law was annulled. Applications for protective measures were filed against the SBS, which was the entity that should pay the pensioners; the MEF was not named in the proceeding, because there was a tactic used by this Ministry and the SBS, since the SBS said that, according to article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792, the MEF should pay them the pension while the MEF alleged that the said article 5 did not create any obligation for it to pay the SBS pensioners and that the SBS should transfer the contributions, which were the appropriate resources to honor the payment of the pensioners. The Constitutional Court’s judgment that ruled on the application for protective measures, delivered after 1994, and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice, ordered the rights of the pensioners to be restored, by paying them the pension they had been receiving in accordance with Decree Law No. 20530. The witness never incorporated the private sector regime. Currently, he receives a pension referred to the salary of an employee under the private sector regime. In March 2002, the SBS issued decisions to which it attached a statement of the amounts due, which the five pensioners accepted; they were therefore paid the pensions accrued during the 10 years that the SBS had ceased to pay them; subsequently, he has received his pension every month. Following a ten-year struggle, during which he suffered such penury, the witness states that he feels slightly comforted. The amount he received in repayment was more or less S.1,400,000.00 (one million four hundred thousand soles), which, in dollars would be approximately US$400,000.00 (four hundred thousand United States dollars), no type of legal interest was added to this amount. The SBS salaries are not raised by the pensioners and, according to the Decree Law No. 20530 labor regime, the witness should receive the salary of the person who occupies his position; this salary is about S.21,000.00 (twenty-one thousand soles), which is about US$6,000.00 (six thousand United States dollars). This payment is subject to one condition that mortifies the pensioners, because the last paragraph of article 3 of the SBS decision states that it is all subject to the judgment of the Inter-American Court, which means that they are still being threatened. The witness requested the Court to deliver its judgment as soon as possible so that he could have peace of mind.