62. According to the information supplied by the parties, eleven months after the ruling on the amparo petition, on April 11, 2002, the Sixty-third Civil Court of Lima issued a decision ordering that the SUNAT and the Ministry of Economy and Finance enforce in full the judgment of the Constitutional Court within a prescribed period of time.7 Information contained in the case file clearly indicates that, given the lack of response, this requirement was reiterated twice, on May 30th 8 and on June 24th, 2002.9 63. The information contained in the case file also indicated that it was not until September 23, 2002, that a decision was made to request an expert report to calculate the amounts owed. 10 From that moment on, the expert reports were challenged by the SUNAT, an entity that, through a variety of legal avenues, objected to the criteria on which the expert reports had been based to date 64. It does not fall to the Commission to analyze if the criteria followed in the expert reports were appropriate or not, or to determine the specific amounts owed to the alleged victims because that is the role of the judicial authorities responsible for enforcing the judgment. The Commission’s analysis must only determine whether the alleged victims had access to effective legal remedy to have the judgment in their favor enforced. 65. In that respect, and without prejudging the merits of the case, the Commission considers that the twelve and a half years delay, from October 25, 199611 to date, can be attributed prima facie to: i) the appeals filed by the state entities being sued; ii) the delay of the judicial authorities to rule on the remedies which, as evidenced by the available information, led to the process being held back for long periods of time; and iii) to the lack of clarity within the Judicial Branch with regard to the legal process to be followed to enforce the judgment. As indicated above, this confusion among the different judges which was finally resolved by the Constitutional Court consumed the first four years of the enforcement process. unchangeable ; and, for that reason, it must be executed according to the terms contained in that decision.” 7 Sixty-third Civil Court of Lima. Decision dated April 11, 2002. 8 Sixty-third Civil Court of Lima. Decision dated May 30, 2002. 9 Sixty-third Civil Court of Lima. Decision dated June 24, 2002. 10 Sixty-third Civil Court of Lima. Decision dated September 23, 2002. 11 Date in which the judgment of October 25, 1993, was ruled enforceable 22