74 j) They requested the Court to order the State to establish a “National Pensioners Day”. “[T]his measure would give Peruvian society, at least once a year, the opportunity to reflect on the importance and transcendence for society of the right to a pension of those who, with effort and dedication, have helped to develop Peru”; and k) With regard to the repayment of costs and expenses, it requested the Court to order the State to repay the expenses incurred by the five pensioners at the domestic level and before the Commission and the Court, and to refund the expenses assumed by the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin in the procedures before the Commission and the Court. As to the amount of the expenses and costs assumed by CEJIL, they indicated that they referred to the report presented by the expert witness, Máximo Jesús Atauje Montes. Lastly, CEDAL stated that the amount established by the Court for this concept will be donated to the National Human Rights Coordinator. 171. In the brief with final arguments, the representatives of the alleged victims and their next of kin informed that the State had complied with some measures of reparation. In this regard, they indicated that: a) Article 5 of Decree Law No. 25792 was annulled by Act No. 27650 of January 21, 2002; b) The State had reestablished the right of the five pensioners to an equalized pension by administrative decisions issued by the SBS on March 12, 2002, which ordered compliance with the 1995 decisions establishing that the judgments of the internal judicial authorities should be executed; and c) The State had paid the five pensioners the amounts of the pensions that they had failed to receive since November 1992. However, they indicated that it did not pay them interest on the said amounts and that the SBS conditioned these payments to the judgment of the Inter-American Court. In addition, they underscored that, even though the amounts received in March 2002 are “high and impressive amounts,” “it should not be forgotten that these figures correspond to sums accumulated over ten years” and that “they are explained due to the exponential increase in the salaries of those who occupy the SBS positions that serve as a reference for the adjustment of the pensions.” The arguments of the State 172. With regard to reparations, costs and expenses, the State indicates the following: a) It is “strange” that the alleged victims “seek to obtain compensation, not only for themselves, but also for their adult dependents,” who are financially independent; b) “With regard to the compensation claimed,” it indicated that “it was inadmissible because, as has been indicated, the State was not responsible for the plaintiffs’ situation”;