58 in practice because the jurisdictional body does not have the independence necessary to arrive at an impartial decision or because they lack the means to execute their decisions; or any other situation in which justice is being denied, such as cases in which there has been an unwarranted delay in rendering judgment151. and that: the safeguard of the individual in the face of the arbitrary exercise of the powers of the State is the primary purpose of the international protection of human rights152. 127. The alleged violation of Article 25 of the Convention will be examined at three different stages: a) the payment of the pensions from April to October 1992 (for Mr. Bartra Vásquez) and September and October 1992 (for the other four pensioners); b) from November 1992 to February 2002; and c) from March 2002 to date. a) First stage 128. In the instant case it has been established (supra paras. 88(h), 89(c), 89(j), 89(q), 89(x), and 89(ee)) that the five pensioners filed various proceedings before the different judicial authorities of Peru, to seek payment of the pensions, which they considered were due to them by law. As a result of these claims, various judgments were delivered ordering the SBS to pay the total pension that the alleged victims had been receiving by law. 129. For example, the judgments employed phrases such as “that the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance comply by paying the plaintiff the pension that he had been receiving by law”153 or “that the respondent pay the pension to the plaintiff in accordance with Decree Law 20530”154 or “that the [Superintendency of Banks and Insurance] pay the plaintiff the entire amount of his pension established by Decision …”155. 151 Cf. Las Palmeras case. Judgment of December 6, 2001. Series C No. 90, para. 58; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community, supra note 2, paras. 111-113; and the Constitutional Court case. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 89, 90 and 93. 152 Cf. the Constitutional Court case, supra note 151, para. 89; Godínez Cruz case. Judgment of January 20, 1989( Series C No. 5, para. 174; and Velásquez Rodríguez case. Judgment of July 29, 1988( Series C No. 4, para. 165. 153 Judgment of the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered on May 2, 1994, regarding the application for amparo filed by Carlos Torres Benvenuto against the SBS (file of appendices to the application, appendix 36, folio 160). 154 Judgment of the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered on September 1, 1994, regarding the application for amparo filed by Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro against the SBS (file of appendices to the application, appendix 38, folio 165). 155 Judgment of the Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice delivered on September 19, 1994, published in the Official Gazette El Peruano on July 25, 1995, regarding the application for amparo filed by Guillermo Álvarez Hernández (file of appendices to the application, appendix 41, folio 172).