10 Commission forwarded information related to the annulment remedies filed by the Superintendency of Banks, Insurance and Investment Supervisor of Peru (hereinafter, the “SBS” or the “Superintendency”) against the administrative decisions that had regulated the equalization of the pensions in favor of the five pensioners (infra Considering clause 25). 23. That at the private hearing, the State indicated that “after analyzing the judgment, it was determined that the domestic courts should decide which was the equalization system that had to be applied to the pensions of the pensioners of the Superintendency of Banks and Insurance. Therefore, the main issue […] was to determine, for the effects of the equalization, whether the pensions should refer to the salary of a worker of the private sector labor regime or whether such it should refer [as understood by the State] to a worker of the public sector labor regime […]. Therefore, […] [the State] instituted administrative proceedings by which it requested the Judiciary to determine this equalization system of pensions. […] The request made by the State has been, precisely, for the purposes of, as stipulated in the Judgment, ordering the domestic courts to determine whether such pensions should be equalized [...] with reference to the salary of a worker of the private sector or the salary of a worker of the public sector labor regime". 24. That, to that effect, the State pointed out that the SBS instituted legal proceedings aimed at declaring the annulment of the administrative decisions that had regulated the equalization of the pensions in favor of the five pensioners. According to the State, the “main purpose of the complaints, in each case, is to declare the annulment of the legal acts contained in the Decisions [of SBS] issued in favor of the five pensioners in the year 1995, by which it was ordered to equalize the retirement pensions of the pension regime of Decree-Law N° 20530 received by the former officials, on the basis of the remunerations that are paid to the employees of the Superintendency, who are subject to the private sector labor regime since January 1, 1982 and, the annulment of the legal acts contained in the [r]esolutions [of SBS] issued on March 12, 2002, whose article 1° orders to comply with the Decisions issued in the year 1995". It further asserted that, as an additional claim, it was requested "the restitution by the [five pensioners] of the sums that the [SBS] paid them in excess as pensions, resulting from the undue increase ordered under the decisions so objected […]. In addition, it informed that the SBS requested to the Specialized Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima the adoption of precautionary measures to “ensure an effective final decision". Said precautionary measures were granted; therefore, the SBS continues paying to the five pensioners an amount equal to the sums they received before the adjustment so objected and, as ordered by said Specialized Chamber, the increase for pension equalization is monthly deposited in Banco de la Nación. 25. That, by means of a report presented on January 19, 2009 (supra Having Seen clause 9), the State described, in detail, the situation in which the proceedings instituted against each one of the victims are, and indicated that: a) Regarding the complaint against Mr. Reymert Bartra Vásquez, the First Transitory Specialized Chamber in Administrative Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima delivered a judgment in first instance on April 27, 2007, by which it declared the annulment of decisions N° 391-95 and 2542002 of the Superintendency, "ordering a new determination of the pension amount, considering the salary of a public sector employees' regime. In respect to such judgment, the State informed that no appeal was filed against