23. Regarding the current situation of the alleged victims, the petitioners note that Lucio Chávez Quiñones and Segundo León Barturén were added to the National List of Irregularly Dismissed Employees and that they requested to be reinstated to their former positions in the Ministry of Economy and Finance under Law No. 27803. Their request has remained unattended to despite the fact that three years have passed since the list including their names was published. Apropos of these circumstances, they indicate that they filed an adversarial administrative action with the goal of achieving reinstatement, as well as precautionary measures requesting provisional reinstatement pending the resolution of the case. They add that they have not received a response from the State despite the fact that the allowed time period has expired. 24. Regarding Mr. Eduardo Bernardo Colán Vargas, they indicate that he has been reinstated in the aforementioned Ministry of Economy and Finance, and that questions pertaining to the regularization of the procedure for reinstatement are exclusively the responsibility of the State, and not of the petitioner. 25. As far as the twelve alleged victims that were not registered on the National List of Wrongfully Dismissed Employees, the petitioners argue that the State did not treat them equally in relation to the benefits provided for by Law No. 27803. In fact, they indicate that Mr. Lucio Chávez Quiñones and Segundo León Barturén, representatives of the alleged victims, were dismissed by the same ministerial resolution that resulted in the dismissal of the other petitioners, but were the only two whose names appeared on the List of Dismissed Employees. They add that the State offered no explanation regarding this situation, and that despite the fact that the petitioners submitted further requests for inclusion on the List of Dismissed Employees on July 11 and 18, 2007, they were not incorporated on the final list of beneficiaries published in March 2008. For this reason, they indicate that many of the petitioners lodged appeals for reconsideration in order to be included in the final list of beneficiaries. 26. To this effect, the petitioners argue that given that the State is responsible for the arbitrary dismissals carried out during the former administration of Fujimori, and that this has been recognized with the issuing of Law No. 27803, among others, the State should therefore fill the vacant positions in the Ministry of Economy and Finance with the victims of said wrongful dismissals, such as the alleged victims in this case. B. The State 27. The State argues that Law No. 27478, published June 23, 2001, repealed Decree Law No. 26093 and the other legal provisions that authorized the collective dismissals on the pretext of the reorganizations. It also asserts that under the law, commissions were to be formed to review the collective dismissals in the public sector, and to then prepare a report on the employees irregularly dismissed. 28. The State points out that Law No. 27803 was published on July 28, 2002. Through this law, the recommendations of the commissions created under laws 25452 and 27586 were implemented. This law, the State explains, created a special benefits program that irregularly dismissed employees could apply for. Such employees could choose one of the following alternatives: i) job reinstatement or 5