that in the enforcement stage, judges are not allowed to modify, interpret or change the meaning of the terms of the judgment. 32. The petitioners alleged that the argument underpinning these decisions was not acceptable in the sense that, as a result of the pension reform of 2004, which eliminated the system provided for in Decree Law 20530, by “constitutional mandate” there are no legal grounds to adjust pensions to be on a par with the salaries of active employees of SUNAT. According to the petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that this constitutional reform constituted a clear regression in the level of protection of pension rights, this same reform could not be used as grounds to rule that previous legal judgments which ordered the restitution of the rights of tens of thousands of retired individuals in Peru were unenforceable. 33. With regard to the State’s argument, the petitioners alleged that the position that there are no legal grounds to adjust pensions to be on a par with the salary scale of private sector employees is irrelevant because, as stated in the second expert report, the computation of the amount by which the petitioners’ pensions needed to be adjusted was based on the salary scale of active employees of SUNAT regulated by the civil service system and not on the salary scale of those regulated by the private sector system. 34. With regard to the argument put forth by the Peruvian State that it was impossible to determine the total number of beneficiaries of this judgment, the petitioners contended that this matter was resolved by a ruling of the court executing the judgment on June 24, 2002, in which it determined that the judgment applied to all the accredited members of the association listed in the legalized copy of the association’s membership registry and to all the individuals included in SUNAT’s list of discharged employees, both of which are part of the case file. 35. The petitioners contended that their case is encased in a context of judgments unenforced by the State. The petitioners pointed out that this context was recognized by the Public Defender’s Office in Defense Resolution No. 62-98/DP, which made clear the almost universal position of the Judicial Branch of not ordering the enforcement of final judgments in cases such as this or to issue writs of attachment on government property. 36. The petitioners indicated that as a result of the judgment in their favor not being enforced, the alleged victims have been receiving 15