52 judgments of May 2, June 28, September 1 and 19, and October 10, 1994, the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru ordered that the five pensioners should be paid a pension equalized with the salary of the active occupant of the same position or a similar function to that of the alleged victims when they ceased working for the SBS. “This corroborated that the applications for amparo filed by the victims were indeed the appropriate recourses under the Peruvian legal system to protect the rights of the victims that had been violated.” The alleged victims did not have to exhaust any domestic remedy against Decree Law No. 25792, promulgated after they had filed the applications for amparo. The Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the remedies of amparo almost two years after Decree Law No. 25792 had entered into force and, fully aware of the existence of a new pension regime, considered that, in the case of the alleged victims, the SBS should pay the equalized pensions; b) The SBS disregarded the rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and only paid the difference in the amount of the pensions partially. Furthermore, as of November 1992, the MEF paid the alleged victims a pension that was substantially less than the one that corresponded to them. Also, the SBS did not abide by the administrative decisions that it issued in 1995, in which it decided to comply with the said rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru; c) Given the non-compliance with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru, some of the alleged victims filed compliance proceedings and, in the corresponding rulings, delivered on July 9, 1998, August 3, 2000, and December 21, 2000, the Constitutional Court ordered the SBS to comply with the provisions of the rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice; d) The alleged victims also filed criminal proceedings, although these did not lead to compliance with the rulings of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Constitutional Court; e) The State violated the right to effective judicial protection by not complying with the provisions of these final judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru and the Constitutional Court of Peru. Compliance with judgments cannot be subject to the discretion of the party that loses the lawsuit, much less when the party that loses the lawsuit is an organ of the State; f) Even though, in April 2002, the State complied with the 1994 judgments in favor of the alleged victims, it did so conditional on the judgment of the Inter-American Court and reserved the right to recover part of the payment made to the pensioners should the Inter-American Court decide that what is owed to them is less than the State has paid them. Due to this situation, the alleged victims are in a “state of total legal uncertainty in view of the State’s declared intention not to comply definitively with the judgments delivered by its highest courts”; g) The State “is not fully complying with the judgments delivered against it by its highest courts. The difference is that instead of disregarding these judgments, it has made a conditional payment to the victims and, as indicated in the oral hearing in the instant case, it now wants the Court to