The judge enforcing the judgment must render criminal liability effective by filing the corresponding complaint against public servants who fail to comply with judicial mandates either through a flat refusal, or by unreasonably delaying compliance with some administrative prerequisite, or by arguing a legal impossibility to comply based on an incorrect interpretation of provisions.97 3. Analysis of the instant case 60. As evidenced by the proven facts, there is no dispute about the fact that Mr. Muelle was included in the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme by a resolution issued by what was then the State-owned mining company, Tintaya. A couple of months later, the same company sent him a communication notifying him that application of the scheme had been suspended. Faced with that situation, Mr. Muelle filed a first action to protect his rights (amparo). After going through several levels of the justice system, this amparo procedure culminated on February 2, 1993, when the Supreme Court of Justice handed down a judgment ordering Mr. Muelle's reincorporation into the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme. 61. Barely a few days after that judgment, the then State-owned mining enterprise issued a Decision suspending payment of pensions in a manner that went against the rights that had been recognized in favor of Mr. Muelle. This led the petitioner to file a second amparo action that was resolved in final instance by the Constitutional Court in 1999, which ordered payment of his adjustable pension as he had been receiving it the first months. 62. While that judgment was still pending, another judicial ruling in Mr. Muelle's favor had been issued in connection with an action filed by the company. On that occasion, the judicial authorities declared the legality of Mr. Muelle's reincorporation into the Decree Law 20530 pension scheme. 63. In addition,, in connection with the process of execution of the Supreme Court's judgment of February 1993, there were multiple judicial pronouncements determining that said judgment had not been complied with. Thus, on December 18, 1995, the company was found to be blocking compliance with the judgment and it was ordered to execute it within three days. That order was reiterated at least three times: on April 7, 1997; January 5, 2009; and March 23, 2009. The Commission stresses that, even though noncompliance with the judgment was evident, none of the judicial authorities hearing the execution of judgment proceedings established any coercive mechanism to ensure that Mr. Muelle's recognized right would actually be exercised. 64. In addition, the IACHR notes that one of the arguments adduced by the company for not complying with that judgment was that the company had been privatized after the ruling had been issued. Here, the Commission notes that the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has maintained that States must guarantee that State-owned company privatization measures do not "undermine workers' rights."98 65. In the same sense, the European Court analyzed a case similar to the present one. In Arras et al. V. Italy a group of former employees of a public bank, which was subsequently privatized, suffered a reduction in their pensions. These people sued the bank and, after several instances, the Court of Cassation considered that the former workers should not have been affected by the decrease of their pensions. Despite this ruling, their pensions were not modified. The European Court considered that the privatization of the 97 Report of the Ombudsperson's Office No. 19, Ombudsperson's Office, The State Administration's Failure to Comply with Judgments. October 1998. 98 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), General Comment No. 18, The Right to Work, 2005, par. 25. 13