59. The Peruvian State lodged a lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies exception, alleging that in the process of enforcement of judgment there were still actions pending resolution. In the State’s opinion, the petitioners’ demands were under study in the domestic proceedings and, hence, a ruling issued by the Commission would, in effect, turn the Commission into a fourth instance. The three arguments offered by the State to justify the length of the process were: i) the initial position of the Judicial Branch that in order to execute the judgment it was necessary for the beneficiaries to file individual claims in the administrative venue; ii) the lack of clarity as to which persons were members of the Association at the time the amparo petition was lodged; and iii) the multiple challenges filed as a result of the controversy over the expert reports. 60. For their part, the petitioners alleged that the very actions that the Peruvian State alleges are pending are precisely the actions and measures being used by the SUNAT to delay the enforcement of judgment. In that respect, the petitioners requested that the Commission rule that the petitioners were exempt from exhausting the domestic remedies under the exemptions established in Article 46.2 (a) and (c) of the American Convention. 61. The Commission observes that since January 21, 1997, and during the subsequent four and a half years, the judicial authorities that intervened in the enforcement of judgment process limited themselves to trying to determine which authority was responsible for enforcing the judgment and what was the prescribed legal procedure to accomplish it. This indecision continued until May 10, 2001, when, as a result of an amparo remedy lodged by the Association, the Constitutional Court ordered the case reinstated in the enforcement of judgment stage, that is, back to the point when the ruling of January 21, 1997, was issued.6 May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Exceptions. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 6 Constitutional Court. Judgment dated May 10, 2001. Doc. No. 104-2001-AA/TC. This decision states that: “no one (…) may vacate decisions that have been issued based on res judicata, nor end proceedings that are still in process, nor modify judgments or delay their enforcement; and this does not take effect when the magistrates being sued, through decisions that are being contested on appeals, pretend to vacate the decision issued by the Pension Court on January 21, 1997, which, in strict compliance with procedural law, orders the enforcement of the Supreme Court decision dated October 25, 1993, which is what these filings demand that it be done. 2. The Constitutional Court has the obligation to state that a final judgment based on the fulfillment of a guarantee, is a final judgment with the authority of res judicata, 21