-90and will subsequently conduct such analysis following the organization or grouping of these judgments adopted in the chapter of Proven Facts (supra para. 204). 227. On the other hand, as regards the determination of the alleged victims, the Court indicates that, during the course of the proceedings, both the Commission and the common intervener have accepted that there are persons that are actually included as beneficiaries in the orders of appeal for legal protection, yet they were excluded from the list of alleged victims by mistake. In this regard, the Court establishes that the alleged victims in the instant case comprise all persons in favor of whom orders for legal protection were issued, as specified by name in said orders. Furthermore, where the names of these persons are not indicated in the orders, and instead are referred to as “the plaintiffs” or “the claimants”, the Court deems the persons who filed the complaints or the petitions for an appeal for legal protection to be alleged victims and will obtain their names from the petitions for appeals for legal protection filed by the plaintiffs. In addition, the Court considers as alleged victims those persons who, not being plaintiffs themselves, have their rights protected by some judgments. 228. When referring to each group of orders for appeal for legal protection, the Court will indicate the persons who are alleged victims, for which purpose an appendix listing these persons is attached hereto and made a part hereof. In addition, the Court has noticed that there are persons who are alleged victims in several orders of appeal for legal protection concerning redundancies or dismissals, the names of whom the Court has put on record in the aforementioned Appendix, without excluding any of them. A) Judgments with respect to dismissals as a result of staff assessment or by reason of redundancy 229. This group of judgments comprise three judgments rendered by the Salas Especializadas en Derecho Público (Chambers Specialized in Public Law)164 and two decisions handed down by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court), 165 declaring the Mayoral Resolutions that ordered dismissals as a result of staff assessment or by reason of redundancy inapplicable (supra paras. 204(15), 204(16), 204(17) and 204(22). The judgments rendered by the aforementioned Chamber ordered the reinstatement of the plaintiffs to their customary jobs or positions (supra paras. 204(15) and 204(22), and the judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) ordered the reinstatement of the plaintiffs “to their jobs or similar positions, without pay for the period not worked.” (supra para. 204(16) and 204(17). 230. This Court notes that, with respect to the compliance with the aforementioned orders of appeal for legal protection issued by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on September 23, 1998 and June 23, 1999, and by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on August 20, 1999, the court in charge of their enforcement directed the municipality to comply with the back pay order (supra paras. 204(19) and 204(23)). As regards the enforcement order of the 164 Judgments rendered on June 6, 1997, September 23, 1998 and June 23, 1999. 165 Judgments rendered on April 9 and August 20, 1999.