with, would give rise to the administrative, civil and criminal responsibilities established by law.”15 This shows clearly that, even prior to the delivery of the judgment, the State was aware of its obligation to determine possible administrative and civil responsibilities. 18. Consequently, the Court reiterates the provisions of its order on monitoring compliance of November 24, 2009, that the thorough investigation of the facts of the case in order to determine the eventual responsibilities involves the investigation and determination of responsibility in jurisdictions other than the criminal justice system, as provided for by domestic law. 19. Regarding the State’s argument concerning the prescription of disciplinary actions, the Court stresses that Peru appears to be invoking this principle owing to its own lack of action. In light of the above, it is essential that the State inform the Court about the measures it took, once it had been notified of the judgment in this case or even before this, in order to advance, on its own initiative, the disciplinary actions established in paragraph 7 of article 239 of Law No. 27444 on General Administrative Procedure, or other actions and responsibilities that are applicable to this case. b) Regarding the obligation to establish the possible patrimonial consequences of the violation of the right to property, in the terms of domestic law, by the competent domestic bodies (fifth operative paragraph of the judgment) 20. The State indicated that “the Court has not explained clearly how the obligation contained in [the said] operative paragraph should be understood.” In this regard, the State reiterated its arguments in the form of the following three questions: (i) “What patrimonial consequences does [the obligation ordered by the Court] refer to?” (ii) “What are the terms of domestic law in the matter?” and (iii) “What competent bodies should decide such patrimonial consequences?” These arguments are summarized below: i) Peru affirmed that “the patrimonial consequences could only relate to […] two elements: (1) to the amount of the pension itself, which has been the object of permanent controversy […], or (2) to the loss of earnings owing to the possible failure to pay the pensions promptly or completely, whatever the amount.” Regarding the amount of the pensions, the State indicated that, although the five pensioners had tried to include, as part of the dispute, the definition of whether their pensions should be aligned with the salaries of the public or the private sector, in the State’s opinion, the Court “prudently refrained from ruling on the matter, aware of the complexity of interpreting the law […] and of the major repercussions that this could have, not only […] in relation to the five specific pensioners, but for all Peruvian pensioners.” The State added that the judgments of the Supreme Court of Justice and of the Constitutional Court in connection with this case “result from applications for protective measures in which the issue in dispute was the capping of pension benefits, and that these judgments ordered the reinstatement of the pensions they had been receiving, but never ruled on how to proceed as regards the alignment of the pensions.” In addition, Peru indicated that “if the patrimonial consequences of non-compliance were to be understood as damages […],” the compensation for the said concept “formed an integral part of the petition [in the case] before the Commission”; yet, this “claim was not admitted by the Court.” In addition, the State indicated that the Court had declared that the judgment constituted per se a form of reparation and that, in the seventh operative paragraph of the judgment it had ordered the payment of an amount for compensation of non-pecuniary damage. Furthermore, the State indicated that “analyzing the norms on extra-contractual responsibility and valid 15 Decisions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance of March 12, 2002 (file of attachments to the pleadings and motions brief, attachments 1 to 5, folios 3 to 18). 6