15 36. That, the foregoing, coincides with the case-law of the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, which has indicated that: It is not adequate, then, to adopt a duality thesis of primacy of International Law over the Domestic Law and vice-versa; it is required, then, a comprehensive solution, based on case-law, in matters of relationship of the Inter-American system of human Rights 36 and the domestic constitutional Law . 37. That, by means of the actions adopted before the delivery of the Judgment in the instant case37, the Peruvian State acknowledged as true certain facts or claims put forward by the representative and the Inter-American Commission and that these, consequently, generated a legal effect on which the Inter-American Court based its decision (supra Considering clauses 30 and 31). 38. That some of the legal decisions related to this matter are pending resolution (supra Considering clauses 25.c; 25.d and 25.e). Until they are not solved, the Court does not count with all the necessary elements for their analysis. However, the Court positively values the dismissal of the additional claims requested by the State, which refer to: “a) the restitution, by the defendants, of the sums of money that the Superintendency paid them in excess, as a result of the increase ordered by the administrative decisions questioned, up to before the filing of the complaints (January 2005) and b) the payment of the accrued interest derived from the payment in excess already mentioned" (supra Considering clause 26). This Tribunal deems that said dismissal is consistent with the Judgment on the merits, reparations and costs delivered on February 28, 2003 and in particular, with the terms of paragraphs 102, 103, 116 and 117 thereof. 39. That, in order to fully analyze the compliance with the Judgment in the instant case, the Court shall assess all the information in order to determine the adequate compliance therewith. THEREFORE: THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, By virtue of its authority to monitor compliance with its own decisions, pursuant to Articles 33, 62(1), 62(3), 65, 67 and 68(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 25(1) and 30 of its Statute and 30(2) and 63 of its Rules of Procedure38, DECLARES: 1. That, in accordance with the terms of Considering clauses 20 and 21 of this Order, the State has fully complied with the following aspects ordered in the 36 Cf. Judgment delivered on March 2, 2007 by the Constitutional Tribunal of Peru, case file N. ° 679-2005-PA/TC, Lima, Santiago Enrique Martin Rivas, para. 36. (http://www.tc.gob.pe/jurisprudencia/2007/00679-2005-AA.html) last visit December 2009. 37 Cf. Case of the Five Pensioners V. Peru, supra note 1, para. 88. n) and 88.o). 38 Rules of Procedure of the Court partially amended during its LXXXII Period of Ordinary Sessions, held from January 19 to 31, 2009.