-35. The notes of January 9 and February 22, 2006, in which the Secretariat, on the instructions of the President of the Court, requested the State to forward, as soon as possible, the report on compliance with the judgment, because the time granted to present it had expired on November 30, 2005, and the State had been asked to submit this report in the Order of September 12, 2005. 6. The brief of June 8, 2006, in which the representatives of the victims and their next of kin referred to compliance with the judgment delivered by the Court. They stated, inter alia, that: a) More than a year ago, the State had instituted legal proceedings against the pensioners, Carlos Torres Benvenuto, Javier Mujica Ruiz-Huidobro, Guillermo Álvarez Hernández, Reymert Barta Vásquez and the widow of Maximiliano Gamarra Ferreira to deprive them of the rights recognized in the judgment of the Inter-American Court. In April 2005, the “Constitutional and Social Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice declared admissible in final instance” the proceedings filed against the said pensioners, “thus confirming the reported acts of dispossession.” The pensions of these men and the said widow “were reduced by about 1,000%.” This drastic reduction returned the five pensioners to “the situation that violated their rights before the judgment” of the Inter-American Court, which “not only represents a violation of the rights that had been protected by prior rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and its Constitutional Court, but an open and unacceptable disregard of the recommendations and decisions of the organs of the interAmerican system in this case.” This “directly affects their financial situation and jeopardizes their health and survival [and that] of their next of kin”; b) “They have been paid the same amounts that they received before the decisions of the Supreme Court (1994), the Constitutional Court (1998), the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2001) and the Inter-American Court itself (2003) ordered the restitution of their pension rights, which had been violated by the regime of former President Alberto Fujimori, in October 1992”; c) The “considerations alleged by the Peruvian State in the administrative-law actions filed on February 11, 2005, against the five pensioners are based on the particular interpretation that the State has made of its own domestic law[, which] disregards the Court’s decisions”; d) The representatives requested the Court “to rule on this situation and order the State to adopt the corresponding measures to ensure compliance with the judgment of February 28, 2003”. 7. The note of the Secretariat of the Court of June 30, 2006, addressed to the State, on the instructions of the President, in which it indicated that, since the Court would monitor the status of compliance with the judgment in this case during its current regular session, it reiterated that the State should transmit the report on compliance. It also informed Peru that the Secretariat had noticed that in the file on monitoring compliance with the judgment in the Lori Berenson Mejía case, the State had transmitted as an attachment to the brief of January 18, 2006, Official Communication No. 2330, signed by the Director of the General Administration Office of the Peruvian Ministry of Justice, which contained, inter alia, references to the “Five Pensioners” case. This document mentioned that “the list of the beneficiaries of the