due to the fact that the court was in recess, took three years to issue a ruling. The petitioners pointed out that on June 25, 1996, the Court of Constitutional Guarantees ordered the enforcement of the judgment, concluding that the decisions in favor of the petitioners in the amparo process in which the State was a party, and which were awaiting resolution in the process of cassation in the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, were final and enforceable. 21. The petitioners indicated that the execution of the judgment in their favor issued on October 25, 1993, should have been initiated immediately but, instead, “a systematic series of actions and illegal maneuvers” had delayed and continued to try to impede compliance with the terms of the judgment which, the petitioners alleged, had caused grave and irreparable damage to the alleged victims. 22. The petitioners also pointed out that due to the fact that the State had lodged a petition for cassation of the judgment of October 25, 1993, and due to the disruption in the functioning of the Judicial Branch caused by the coup of 1992, it was not until January 21, 1997, that the process of executing the judgment was initiated by order of the Pension Benefits Court. 23. The petitioners pointed out that the decision of the Provisional Court ordered the Ministry of Economy and Finance “to comply within the ruling of the Supreme Court of October 25, 1993, in the period established by law.” The petitioners added that the aforementioned ministry lodged a petition for annulment of that decision alleging that it was not the ministry’s responsibility to comply with the order. Consequently, through a resolution issued on April 8, 1997, the SUNAT was ordered to comply with the judgment. The petitioners indicated that on August 18, 1997, this decision also was ruled null and void by the Superior Court and that, finally, on February 16, 1998, the petition for annulment lodged by the Ministry of Economy and Finance was ruled without merit. 24. The petitioners pointed out that as a result of other appeals lodged by the state entities being sued, on August 27, 1998 and on January 21, 1999, the Civil Law Chamber of the Lima Superior Court issued decisions vacating the decision of January 21, 1997, and ruling that the petition for enforcement of judgment filed by the association was inadmissible, “but reserved the right of the Association to exercise the recourse in the manner prescribed by law.” According to the 12