71 the said guarantees162. 166. As already indicated in this judgment, the Court observes that, the State violated the human rights embodied in Articles 21 and 25 of the Convention, to the detriment of Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra and Reymert Bartra Vásquez; it therefore failed to comply with the general obligation established in Article 1(1) to respect the rights and freedoms embodied in the Convention and to ensure their free and full exercise. 167. The Court observes that, by abstaining for an extended period of time from adopting the series of measures necessary to fully comply with the judgments of its judicial organs and, consequently, making effective the rights embodied in the American Convention (Articles 21 and 25), the State failed to comply with the obligation stipulated in Article 2 thereof. 168. In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the State failed to comply with the general obligations of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention. XII APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) The arguments of the Commission 169. The Commission stated that it corresponded to the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin to present “their specific claims” regarding reparations and costs. In this respect, it requested the Court: a) To order that the alleged victims and their next of kin should be ensured the enjoyment of their rights that had been violated by compliance with the judgments delivered by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru on May 2, June 28, September 1 and 19, and October 10, 1994, and by the Constitutional Court of Peru on July 9, 1998, August 3, 2000, and December 21, 2000. In this respect, it indicated that “[c]ompliance with these judgments implies that the State of Peru should pay Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and the next of kin of Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra the difference that it has not paid them in the amount of their pensions as of November 1992, plus the respective interest, and that it should also pay them their pensions for an equalized amount in the future”; b) To order the State to compensate Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Bartra Vásquez and the next of kin of Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreyra “for all other damage that […] they duly substantiate, which is a consequence of the alleged violations of the human rights of the victims, including the non-pecuniary damage for the suffering arising from the reduction in the amount of their pensions and from the State’s failure to comply with the judgments of the 162 Cf. Baena Ricardo et al, case, supra note 160, para. 180; Cantoral Benavides case. Judgment of August 18, 2000. Series C No. 69, para. 178; and Castillo Petruzzi et al. case. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207.