17 in favor of Mr. Muelle Flores, revoking the suspension of his pension under the Decree Law No. 20530 scheme. Regarding Mr. Muelle Flores’ inclusion in that pension system, the court concluded that this was carried out by the company that employed him; in other words, “his inclusion established a substantive legal relationship between employee and employer, that is to say, one that gave rise to material rights and obligations that both parties must comply with.” Therefore, the company could not suspend those rights unilaterally; rather, any amendment or termination of said rights had to be obtained through an agreement between the parties or via a decision of a competent court. Thus, the court concluded that the company’s unilateral suspension of the pension scheme was an unlawful and arbitrary act that violated the right to social security, equality and the right to work.55 55. Although the company appealed the court’s decision, on May 29, 1992, the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima confirmed the lower court’s ruling, considering that the suspension of the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme had been carried out through an internal company communication, in an action that “ha[d] characteristics that injure and violate the law [,].”56 56. On February 2, 1993, the Supreme Court of Justice upheld the Superior Court’s ruling and declared that “in the absence of nullity” in the judgment delivered by the Second Civil Chamber, the amparo action was well-founded and ruled that General Management Communication No. GA/0131/91 of February 27, 1991, “providing for the suspension ordered by the defendant, of the complainant’s inclusion in the pension and benefits scheme envisaged in Decree-Law 20530 and of payment of his pension, is inapplicable to the complainant, wherefore his rights shall be restored to their status prior to the violation of the Constitution.” The ruling established that, “given that this is a matter of rights recognized in favor of the employee which the company itself later unilaterally ceased to recognize, the amparo suit for restoration […] is in order.”57 E. Privatization of the State-owned Empresa Minera Especial Tintaya S.A. 57. The Empresa Especial Minera Tintaya S.A. was privatized in 1994, in the context of Law Decree No. 674, entitled “Law for the Promotion of Private Investment of State Companies” and its Regulations, approved by Supreme Decree N°070-93-PCM. Article 1 of this Law Decree declared of national interest the promotion of private investment in companies that formed part of the State’s business activities.58 58. On November 29, 1994, a share purchase agreement contract was signed between the Compañía Minera de Peru S.A. and the consortium made up of Magma Copper Company and Global Magma Ltd. (called Magma Copper Corporation). This consortium acquired the ownership and total and absolute control, without restriction, of 98.43% of the social capital of Tintaya, while the workers acquired the remaining 1.57%.59 59. The share purchase agreement contract between the parties stipulated in clause VI, subparagraph 7, entitled “statements and guarantees of the vendor,” that the vendor was unaware of “the existence of other liabilities or assets, or contingencies, derived from tax, labor, legal or any 55 Cf. Judgment of the Fifth Civil Court of Lima of July 19, 1991 (evidence file, folios 22 to 24). 56 Cf. Judgment of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of May 29, 1992 (evidence file, folios 592- 593). 57 Cf. Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 2, 1993 (evidence file, folio 13). 58 Cf. Resolution N. 08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1725) and Affidavit rendered by César José Gonzáles Hunt on August 24, 2018 (evidence file, folio 1848). 59 Cf. Resolution N.08 of the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of October 10, 2013 (evidence file, folio 1725), and Affidavit rendered by César José Gonzáles Hunt on August 24, 2018 (evidence file, folio 1848).