-79resolutions whereby the reduction of wages, salaries and pensions of municipal workers had been ordered; e) the Municipality of Lima to transfer to the union certain premises for it to use as its headquarters, as the Municipality of Lima was bound to do according to the agreement signed on December 13, 1988, to annul the termination of the award of the land located in La Molina, which was transferred to the union for no consideration and which were to be used for a housing program and the cancelllation of the respective “registration record”; and f) the inapplicability to the workers of the dissolution and winding up of Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation), their reinstatement to their jobs and payment to them of their respective damages; b) the State’s obligation to enforce compliance with court rulings becomes of paramount importance when the obligation to comply with such ruling falls on a State agency, which “may have a tendency to use its power and its privileges to try to ignore court decisions rendered against it;” c) Peru has avoided compliance with Peruvian court judgments repeatedly, which revealed “a pattern of systematic disregard of court decisions;” d) when compelled to comply with the court decisions, the Municipality of Lima “created additional conditions, transferring some of its own functions to the workers for the purpose of rendering their situation more burdensome and delaying compliance, clearly abusing public power, and pursuing regulatory arguments to evade responsibility;” e) the right to effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention and, specifically, the obligation to which subparagraph 2(c) of said article refers, “implies that States must enforce such decisions in good faith and without delay so that the victims do not need to seek additional remedies;” f) the State “has formally, clearly and specifically admitted to refusing to comply with the court decisions and has accordingly accepted international responsibility;” g) before the Court, the State challenges the validity of the actions taken by its own organs, a procedural position not compatible with the exercise of rights established under the American Convention; h) the State has also argued before the Court that the judgments result from a defective construction of the law and has submitted a large amount of evidence in an attempt to have the Court “assess the fairness of the judgments,” and excuse compliance therewith. The construction exercise proposed to the Court is foreign to the jurisdiction of the organs of the InterAmerican System; i) the State has failed to prove the alleged corrupt collusion in issuing the judgments rendered in this case despite several domestic investigations. When the Municipality of Lima disagreed with the court decisions it availed itself of the remedies at its disposal. If the Municipality continued to disagree with the final judgment denying the appeal, it could have availed itself of special