34 Mr. Muelle Flores filed an application for amparo before the Supreme Court, which decided in his favor on February 2, 1993, and ordered the State-owned company to pay Mr. Muelle the corresponding pension and reinstate him in the aforementioned scheme. 131. From the evidence in the file, the Court finds that, despite that judgment, the Empresa Especial Minera Tintaya S.A., which was a State-owned company at the time, did not comply with the Supreme Court ruling; on the contrary, a few days after the decision was adopted, the company issued a new Board of Directors Decision ordering the suspension of Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension payments once again. In response, Mr. Muelle Flores filed a second application for amparo, which was eventually declared to have merit in 1999, and which ordered the non-application of the 1991 Board Decision and the payment of his pension. During the second amparo proceeding, one of the intervening judicial authorities concluded that the violation of Mr. Muelle’s right to a pension constituted “a clear and unlawful resistance to the decision of the judicial authority.” However, this decision, too, was not complied with or executed by the State. The Court notes that in addition to the two judgments that protected Mr. Muelle Flores’ right to an equalized pension, the State-owned company filed a contentious- administrative action prior to its privatization, asking the court to declare unlawful his inclusion in the Decree Law No. 20530 pension scheme. This also resulted in a decision favorable to Mr. Muelle in 1997, with the court concluding that his inclusion in that pension scheme complied with existing legal requirements. In this regard, the Court observes that, after the first judgment was delivered in 1993, the State did not take any steps to comply, in a prompt and effective manner, with the measures ordered by the judicial authorities to guarantee Mr. Muelle Flores’ legally recognized right to a pension. ii) Creation of obstacles to the enforcement of domestic judgments via privatization 132. After the Supreme Court judgment of 1993, Tintaya S.A. was privatized on November 29, 1994, and from that date ceased to be a State-owned company. The Court observes that since that time, the company has changed its business name and has been acquired by different owners, but has not reverted to being a State-owned public company. 133. The Court notes that prior to the company’s privatization in November 1994, a final judicial ruling had already been issued against the State-owned firm. In other words, the State was aware of the existing legal obligations and, despite this, not only failed to comply, but its Board of Directors even adopted a subsequent decision to suspend Mr. Muelle Flores from the pension scheme under Decree Law No. 20530. Furthermore, the State took the decision to privatize the public company, without adopting measures of due diligence to ensure that the transfer of ownership would not affect compliance with the obligation to pay Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension. 134. In particular, the Court notes that the State did not establish, clearly and explicitly, who would be responsible for the administration and payment of Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension, given that, under the existing legal system, the obligated public company would become a private company. This lack of clear regulation regarding which entity would be responsible for paying Mr. Muelle Flores’ pension created a situation of uncertainty regarding its payment which, in turn, created an obstacle to compliance and execution of the judgment. The State had a legal obligation to comply, which should have been maintained after privatization or, at least, it should have established which entity (public or private) would be required to comply with the ruling. It is important to recall that, based on the obligations derived from Article 1(1) of the Convention, the State not only has the obligation to respect rights, but also to ensure that rights are respected. Therefore, even on the assumption that a private entity would be responsible for paying Mr. Muelle’s pension, the State had the obligation to ensure that his pension was paid.148 148 The Court has also established that the State´s liability may also result from acts committed by private individuals