23 mentioned the Official Letters N° 019-2007-CG/GG and 079-2007-CG/GG of February 9, 2007 and July 17, 2007, respectively, by means of which the General Manager of the Comptroller, considering the “Expert Report prepared by the Expert Witness appointed by the 66° [Specialized Civil Trial Court of Lima]”, requested the MEF National Budget Directorate to "approve an additional petition for [in the budget of the Comptroller for] the amount [of S/. 244.314.787,00 new soles,] in order to cover the payment of the amount owed to the pensioners” of the Association of Discharged and Retired Employee; b) Judicial Decision N° 152 of July 19, 2006 of the 66° Specialized Civil Trial Court of Lima in charge of enforcing the judgment of the First Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Lima, dated December 14, 1993 (upheld by the judgment of the Constitutional Court of October 21, 1997), that ordered “to remand [the casefile] to the Office of Judicial Expert Assessments in order to appoint an Expert Witness to calculate the pensions owed to the pensioners of the Association from the month of April, 1993 to October, 2002; c) Note N° 7-5-M/608 of December 20, 2007 submitted by the Perú’s representative to the OAS on December 26, 2007 in the proceeding before the Commission, by means of which it informed “in order to prove the will of the Peruvian State to comply with the recommendations of the [Commission's] Report N° 125/06, [that it was] approved the first payment in favor of the discharged and retired employees of the Comptroller General of the Republic". Moreover, it requested an extension “to arrange the timetable to comply [with the payment of the remaining] amount owed to the pensioners”; d) The bill for an Emergency Decree, presented on January 11, 2008 by the Executive Secretariat of the Human Rights National Council, by means of Official Letter Nº 094-2008-JUS/CNDH-SE before the Adviser to the President of the Council of Ministers, which proposed "to authorize, exceptionally, the Department of National Treasury to set up a fund of up to a [hundred and twenty millions] and 00/100 new soles [S/ 120.000.000,00], to be exclusively assigned for the payment of the debt derived from the judicial rulings to which the Final Report of the Commission refers ”, and e) The Administrative Order N° 022-2001-CG/B190 of March 29, 2001, presented by the Administration Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic of Perú, by means of which it was established that “the Human Resources Department of the Comptroller General of the Republic shall make the corresponding calculation of the amounts owed”. 63. Therefore, the Court considers that, by means of such acts in the proceeding before the Commission, the Peruvian State acknowledged as true some facts or claims put forward by the representative and that these, as a result, produced a legal effect upon which the representative as well as the Commission acted. Hence, the contradictory position that the State intends to take up in the proceeding of the case before this Court is barred in light of the principle of estoppel. In this regard, the State is barred from disavowing those acts by means of which it acknowledged it has the obligation to pay the amounts corresponding to the adjustable pensions owed and unpaid to the alleged victims from April 1993 to October 2002. 64. Moreover, the Court notes that the State acknowledged before this Tribunal that the alleged victims instituted a proceeding to enforce the judgment after the delivery of the second judgment of the Constitutional Tribunal and that, by means of Order Nº 63 of January 24, 2005, the 4º Specialized Civil Court ordered the State "to pay the pensions owed and unpaid of the Association.”48 In said enforcement proceeding, it was once again proven that the State has the obligation to pay to the alleged victims the amounts corresponding to the adjustable pensions owed and unpaid from April 1993 to October 2002. The determination of such amounts, at the date of this Judgment, is still pending 48 Order Nº 63 of January 24, 2005 issued by the 4º Specialized Civil Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima (record of Appendixes to the brief of final arguments presented by the State, pages 2716 and 2717).