65 d) With the said actions, Peru violated the right of the five pensioners to have judges with general jurisdiction – civil judges – decide on their rights impartially and independently, without the interference of the Executive. “[I]n order to consider that a court respects the guarantee of the regular, independent and impartial judge, that court should not only have been established previously by a law, but also should have been established so that its competence to hear the case submitted to it is derived from the said case being one of those that, in general and in abstract, the law establishes should be judged by that court”; e) The five pensioners filed a criminal complaint against the State agents responsible for non-compliance with the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice, seeking to have them investigated and punished for noncompliance. However, “the criminal recourses were ineffective to repair the right of the pensioners to have the judgments in their favor complied with, which violated the right to effective judicial protection embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention”; f) The communication of September 22, 2000, submitted by Javier Mujica during the procedure before the Commission, stated, in the part relating to the violation of the right to a fair trial, that the said change in jurisdiction “constituted a flagrant violation of the principle of the judge with general jurisdiction and also represented a covert means of assigning the case to courts that were known to favor the position of the SBS.” On September 26 that year, the Commission forwarded the pertinent parts of this communication to the State so that the latter had the opportunity of exercising its right to defense in view of the alleged violation; g) The applicants are allowed to extend the factual framework presented by the Commission in the application and to include other events described during the procedure before the Commission but not included in the application; h) According to the Court’s new Rules of Procedure, the true parties to the contentious proceeding are the individual plaintiffs and the State and, only procedurally, the Commission. Moreover, the victims have the right to participate autonomously in the international proceeding, so that, in their application, they may include facts that were not included in the Commission’s application, “provided the State is given the opportunity to challenge them; and this can take place before the Court.” If the alleged victims were denied this possibility, the principle of procedural equality would be violated; and i) There is no provision in the Convention establishing that only the Commission or the State may determine the factual basis for the proceeding before the Court. Once the Commission has filed the application, the alleged victims and the State may present autonomously any de facto and de jure matters that they deem necessary to provide the Court with a better understanding in order to deliver judgment.