86. On September 22, 2011, the Constitutional Court decided to declare the ANCEJUB-SUNAT request for judgment clarification inadmissible116, considering that: (…) instead of asking for clarification, what the petitioner does is to speculate, without any grounds whatsoever, on the alleged origin of the basis for the ruling, claiming that they could be based on the ‘grounds of a minority vote by two (2) members of the Supreme Court’, when in fact, as shown by the ruling in question, (…) this Court has based its decision on the provisions set forth in the ruling issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru dated October 25, 1993117. E. Actions brought before the Court by Mr. Ipanaqué 87. The IACHR acknowledges and notes that Mr. Ipanaqué was a member of ANCEJUB-SUNAT and, as such, was a party to the amparo actions and judgment execution process described in the previous sections of this Report. Below, the Commission summarizes the available information about the actions brought before the court by him as an individual. 88. On March 10, 1999, Mr. Ipanaqué submitted a petition before the First Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law, requesting the court to order SUNAT to pay for the pension he was entitled to118, pursuant to provision in the Supreme Court ruling dated October 1993, ratified by the Constitutional Court ruling dated June 1996119. 89. On March 30, 1999, the Court issued a resolution requesting SUNAT to abide by the Supreme Court ruling dated October 1993 in the term of ten days 120. SUNAT stated in a writ dated June 23, 1999, that it is not competent to comply with said resolution, and that the competent authority if the ONP [Social Security Administration] or the MEF [Ministry of Economy and Finance]121. Mr. Ipanaqué declared that despite the fact that he had sent different writs to SUNAT, the Superintendence had failed to pay for the pension he was entitled to122. 90. On April 29, 1999, the First Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law issued a new resolution, stating the following: (…) even though it is true that Mr. Rafael Ipanaqué Centeno is a member of the National Association of Discharged and Retired Staff from SUNAT, he has not substantiated the existence of interests to litigate separately, especially if we consider that should all the many members of said association decide to appear individually, the proceedings would become really cumbersome (…). [G]iven the resolution dated October 2 of year (…) it has been clearly determined that the petitioners with a jurisdictional precedent of res judicata, should bring forth an individual administrative or jurisdictional action, before the entity where the documentation corresponding to their pensions is kept, and not in this process, which lacks such documentation123. 116 Decree issued by the Permanent Chamber of Social and Constitutional Law of the Supreme Court of Peru on November 25, 2011 (Attached to the petitioner’s writ dated on December 13, 2011). 117 Resolution issued by the Constitutional Court on September 22, 2011 (Attached to the petitioner’s writ dated December 13, 118 Attachments to the initial petition. 119 Attachments to the initial petition. 120 Attachments to the initial petition. 121 Attachments to the initial petition. 122 Attachments to the initial petition. 123 Attachments to the initial petition. 2011). 18