January 5, 2015, the Judicial Expert Report Office issued a document pointing out that that it is not competent to make a decision about it100, since the subject matter has to be analyzed by a competent court101. 79. On May 28, 2015, the Second Civil Court received the judgment execution file102. In their writ drafted in May 2016, the petitioners informed that to that date the court has not issued a decision about the abovementioned Expert Report, as well as the execution status of the judgment dated October 1993103. They added that to that date, 125 members of the Association had passed away104. 80. On May 26, 2016, SUNAT interposed a “complaint for functional misconduct, as well as misdemeanors, and minor and serious offenses” against the Judge in the Second Civil Court of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima and against the Legal Specialist in said Court for failing to issue a resolution referring to the approval of the Expert Report105. D. About the third amparo action 81. Parallel to the judgment execution process described so far, on December 15, 2006, ANCEJUB-SUNAT filed an amparo action before the Civil Chamber on Duty of the Superior Court of Lima against the members of the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima 106. They alleged violation of their fundamental rights to effective judicial protection, and failure to enforce final court resolution on the amparo action with res judicata authority107. They furthermore submitted a plea to nullify the resolution dated July 24, 2006, declaring that the resolution that deemed the observations made by SUNAT to be unfounded, and approved the Expert Report issued by the 66th Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima 108 null and void. 82. On September 28, 2009, the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima declared the amparo action submitted to be unfounded109. The Chamber provided the following considerations: (…) it can be gathered that instead of showing that any constitutional rights have been affected, the presentation denotes dissatisfaction on the part of the petitioning party regarding the criteria adopted by the jurisdictional body evaluating the case”110. 100 Expert Report N°003-2015-ETP-JAVM-PJ issued by the Court Services Area on January 5, 2015 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 101 Expert Report N°003-2015-ETP-JAVM-PJ issued by the Court Services Area on January 5, 2015 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 102 Resolution issued by the Second Civil Court on May 28, 2015 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 103 Communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016. 104 Communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016. Complaint filed by SUNAT before the Chief Magistrate of the Local Delegation Governing the Magistrates’ Council of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on May 26, 2016 (Attached to the communication issued by the State on June 6, 2016). 105 106 Writ of amparo interposed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Civil Chamber on Duty of the Superior Court of Lima on December 15, 2006 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated August 24, 2006). 107 Writ of amparo interposed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Civil Chamber on Duty of the Superior Court of Lima on December 15, 2006 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated August 24, 2006). 108 Writ of amparo interposed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Civil Chamber on Duty of the Superior Court of Lima on December 15, 2006 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated August 24, 2006). 109 Appeal action interposed by ANCEJUB-SUNAT before the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima on December 2nd, 2009 (Attached to the petitioners’ writ dated October 17, 2010). 110 Resolution issued by the Seventh Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on September 28, 2009 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 26, 2010). 16