B) Regarding the obligation to guarantee the victim her full retirement benefits, including those owed for the period transpired since the time of her detention (Operative paragraph two of the Judgment) 13. The State reported that the victim is “unemployed pursuant to Decree Law No. 20530” and that as such she is offered “unemployment pension for the 21 years, 1 month, and 8 days of service lent to the State, under the charge of Sub-Director, Level F-2.” The State specified that “Mrs. Loayza Tamayo could receive pension as a teacher, if the corresponding change is made to the Private Pensions System, given that, […] pursuant to the Decree [Law] 19990, it is not permitted for any Peruvian citizen to receive an additional pension, as a teacher at a public institution, if to date one is under the unemployment pension of the Decree L[aw] No. 20530, as is the case at hand.” As such, given that this regards an issue that is in the hands of the victim, the State considers that it has fulfilled this obligation of the Judgment. Nevertheless, it also added that the Office of Production of the Office of Pension Standardization “reported that Mrs. Loayza Tamayo is not to be found in the pension records that [said] Office administers,” which is in charge of the administration of pensions that correspond to Decree Law No. 19990. In addition, it attached “the Individual Account of [Mrs. Loayza Tamayo] containing the contributions made to the National Pension System from 2002 to date.” 14. In regard to this point, the victim stated that “despite the fact that the […] the Office of Pension Standardization [thinks that] it is not possible for her to receive two pensions” one protected by Law No. 20530 (for services lent to the Ministry of Health) and the other by Decree Law No. 19990 (for teaching services), “the time has not been added for the period she spent under illegal and arbitrary detention” up until her reinstatement at the mentioned public institutions, that is, 4 years, 7 months, and 11 days for pension purposes and the years she remained in another country as a political refugee. She specified that “at the time of her arbitrary detention, although she was unemployed under the scope of Decree Law 20530 for having worked for the Ministry of Health, she continued [working] for public and private institutions under the scope of [Decree] Law 19990, offering educational services as a teacher.” The victim highlighted that “she has been contributing to the National Pension System [for] her work at the National Institute of Culture since April 1, 1972.” She added that “upon not being entitled to a pension under the pension regime of [the Decree] Law 19990, the State would be retaining her compensation in an irregular manner.” 15. In regard to the foregoing, the Commission assessed as “a breakthrough” that “the State and the victim agreed that domestic Peruvian law allows for Mrs. Loayza Tamayo to receive the two pensions to which she claims she is entitled.” However, it stressed that “[t]he reports of the State [...] merely reiterate Mrs. Loayza Tamayo’s pensioner status under one of the regimes.” In this regard, the Commission “consider[ed] it relevant that the State refer [...] to the comments of the victim about the possibility of having two pensions, thereby assuring that in the retirement regarding her educational services it include the years she worked [...] as well as those where she was deprived of liberty.” 16. The Court notes that expressed by the Office of Pension Standardization in “that there is no inconsistency in simultaneously and legally receiving two pensions obtained under Decree Law No. 20530 and Decree Law No. 19990, when and if the contributions of Mrs. Loayza Tamayo that establish her right to the latter do not correspond to work periods 6