26. Although the Court did not order the State to make a specific payment of an amount to compensate pecuniary damage in its judgment, it did take this claim into account to establish, in the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment, the State’s obligation to “determine the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property, in the terms of domestic law, by the competent domestic bodies.” 27. In previous cases, when ruling on reparations, the Court has also established that certain decisions be made in the domestic sphere, taking into account that “[t]hey […] entail the analysis of complex issues of [domestic] law, so that it is more appropriate that […] they be decided in [that] sphere.”39 Therefore, owing to the matter and the specificity involved in determining the said patrimonial consequences, in this case, the Court established the general guidelines that the State should follow when taking these decisions; that is, “in the terms of domestic law” and “by the competent domestic bodies.” 28. During the stage of monitoring compliance with judgment, the State has provided information on domestic law concerning the determination of patrimonial consequences according to the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure (supra considering paragraph 20(i)), which have not been contested by the victims’ representatives. Based on this information, the Court considers that compliance with the reparation ordered in the fifth operative paragraph of the judgment signifies that the competent domestic bodies must rule on eventual claims filed by the victims concerning the possible patrimonial consequences resulting from the violation of the right to property declared by the Court in its judgment. These consequences may include compensation to the victims for damage, or other consequences under Peruvian law. When determining the possible patrimonial consequences, the said bodies must give particular relevance to the scope of the declaration of the violation of the right to property of the victims, in the terms of the judgment. 29. Consequently, the Court requests the representative to indicate whether the victims have filed any claim before the competent bodies under Peruvian law. If so, the Court recalls that the State must take the pertinent steps to respond to the said measures taken by the victims effectively and as soon as possible,40 based on the violation of the right to property declared in the judgment, and must inform the Court accordingly. C) Alleged failure to comply with the Court’s judgment owing to further reductions in the amounts of the victims’ pensions 30. The Court underlines that, since 2005, the victims’ representative has been reporting measures that supposedly were contrary to the provisions of the judgment. Specifically, the representative referred to the actions for declaration of nullity filed by the SBS in 2005 against its own 1995 and 2002 decisions (supra considering paragraph 23(c)), regarding which the Permanent Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice had ordered that the pension of the victims be aligned with that of a public administration official or employee, rather than to the pension corresponding to the private sector, as had been the practice up until that time. According to the representative, the 2005 actions for declaration of nullity filed by the SBS were contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court in 1994 and the Constitutional Court in 1998 and 2000 (supra considering paragraph 21). 39 Case of Baena Ricardo et al v. Panama. Monitoring compliance with judgment. Order of the InterAmerican Court of Human Rights of November 22, 2002, eighth considering paragraph. Also, cf. Case of Ivcher Bronstein v. Peru. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of February 6, 2001. Series C No. 74, para. 181, and Case of Cesti Hurtado v. Peru. Reparations and costs. Judgment of May 31, 2001. Series C No. 78, para. 46. 40 Cf. Case of Five Pensioners v. Peru. Monitoring compliance with judgment, supra note 8, thirty-third considering paragraph. 12