-2American Convention, in relation to the general obligation set forth in Article 1(1) (Obligation to Respect Rights) therein. The facts stated in the application refer to the alleged non-compliance with the judgments rendered between 1996 and 2000 “by the Judges of the city of Lima, the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (Supreme Court of Justice of Lima) on appeal” and the Tribunal Constitucional del Perú (Constitutional Court of Peru) on an amparo for legal protection. According to the Commission, said judgments ordered the Municipality of Lima to “reinstate the workers [of the Municipality] dismissed on the grounds of having failed to attend or to pass the examinations convened by the municipality, [...] the individuals dismissed on the grounds of having participated in the strike organized by the union and which had been declared illegal[, and] the individuals dismissed as a result of the winding up of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de [Limpieza de Lima]” (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) (ESMLL). Likewise, according to the Commission, compliance was pending on the orders directing “that said workers were to be paid compensations, bonuses, allowances, incentives, and other benefits acknowledged in the agreements signed with the union between [1989 and 1995], […], nor have the premises of the union been surrendered to the workers […] and […] the plots of land in La Molina which were donated to the union for a housing program have not been adjudicated and registered […].” In submitting the case, the Commission stated that “it expresses its satisfaction over the State’s acknowledgment of its international responsibility for having failed to observe the orders rendered by its judges, but in light of the persistent non-compliance by the State with the recommendation included in the report on the merits, the vain attempts […] to reach a friendly settlement and the creation of several commissions for such purpose that have failed to achieve effective results, the Commission has decided to submit the […] case [to] the jurisdiction of the Honorable Inter-American Court.” 3. Likewise, the Commission asked the Inter-American Court to order the State, under Article 63(1) of the Convention, to adopt the specific reparation measures detailed in the application. Lastly, the Commission requested the Court to order the State to pay costs and expenses arising from the processing of the case in domestic legal proceedings and in proceedings under the Inter-American System. II JURISDICTION 4. The Court has jurisdiction to hear the instant case pursuant to Articles 62 and 63(1) of the Convention as Peru has been a State Party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, and accepted the contentious jurisdiction of the Court on January 21, 1981. III PROCEEDING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On January 13, 1999, the Inter-American Commission received a petition filed by the representatives of the workers. 6. On June 9, 1999, the Commission held itself available to the parties in order to try and reach a friendly settlement.