23 84. During the proceeding before the Commission, Mr. Muelle explained that he suddenly lost his hearing in 1999 and that he went “to the most renowned medical specialists” who could do nothing to help his hearing problem but “recommended that [he] be examined at a center or institution in the more advanced countries in these matters [and] that is how [he obtained] an appointment in March 2001 at the Audiology Research Institute of the University of Miami.”95 As a result, Mr. Muelle Flores remained abroad for seven years, approximately.96 The aforementioned partial payments were suspended from July 2001, after the presumed victim traveled to the United States. 85. After his return to Peru, Mr. Muelle Flores requested that his case be reopened 97 and, on August 5, 2008, the Forty-third Civil Court of the Superior Court of Lima took on the reopened case. 86. On April 6, 2009, the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court of Lima, which had assumed jurisdiction for executing the judgment of February 1993, issued two resolutions on January 5 and March 23, 2009, respectively, ordering the company to comply with the aforementioned judgment within three days.98 87. On April 13, 2009 the company Xstrata Tintaya S.A. (formerly BHP Billiton Tintaya S.A.) attended the proceeding before the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court of Lima and emphasized that the Empresa Especial Tintaya S.A. was privatized in 1994 and, over time, was purchased by various different corporations, its current owner being Xstrata Tintaya S.A. 99 88. Xstrata Tintaya S.A. indicated that “the Decree Law N° 20530 scheme [was] a system that regula[ted] State pensions and benefits for workers who provided civil services to the national public sector […].” The company emphasized that “the Decree Law N° 20530 system establish[ed] a pension obligation between the State (entity and/or company) and its former employees, provided that they met the requirements stipulated in that Decree. Over time, the authority to recognize the right to a pension and benefits under that system was attributed, initially, to the State institution where the pensioner worked, and subsequently to the Pension Standardization Office, to finally return to the initial system whereby each entity was responsible for recognizing and paying its own workers’ pension benefits. It was also established that for companies that had been privatized (in which the State had no stake), dissolved or liquidated, the competent entity “[would be] the Ministry of Economy and Finance [referring to laws No. 27719 and 28115] (infra para. 138).” In that regard, Xstrata Tintaya S.A. concluded that the competent entity was the MEF, which was asked to attend the enforcement proceeding.100 89. On April 26, 2010, the Thirty-Eighth Civil Court of Lima issued a new resolution in which it stated that, despite reiterated instructions to the defendant company to comply with the Supreme Court judgment, the plaintiff’s claim was no longer viable given that the State company had been privatized after the judgement was issued, and therefore it was not obligated to make the payments 95 Cf. Communication of Oscar Muelle Flores of May 29, 2010 received by the Inter-American Commission on July 8, 2010 (evidence file, folios 237 to 238). 96 Cf. Communication of Oscar Muelle Flores of May 29, 2010 received by the Inter-American Commission on July 8, 2010 (evidence file, folios 237 to 238). 97 Cf. Resolution issued by the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima of April 26, 2010 (evidence file, folio 68). 98 Cf. Report No.48-2010-JUS/PPES from the State of Peru of February 25, 2010, received by the Inter-American Commission on March 1, 2010 (evidence file, folios 39.8 to 39.9). 99 Cf. Notice of appearance of the firm Xstrata Tintaya S.A. of April 13, 2009, presented before the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima (evidence file, folios 62 to 64). 100 Cf. Notice of appearance of the firm Xstrata Tintaya S.A. of April 13, 2009, presented before the Thirty-eighth Civil Court of Lima (evidence file, folios 62 to 64).