-92- * * * 237. Finally, this group of judgments concerning dismissals as a result of staff assessments includes the judgment rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on July 27, 1998 (supra para. 204(26)). 238. Regarding to this judgment, in its submission of closing arguments, the State asserted that there is no way of relating the judgment with any dismissal or person and that it does not contain any order whatsoever. 239. In relation to this, the Court considers that the aforementioned judgment of July 27, 1998 affirmed the decision of the Primer Juzgado Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law) (supra para. 204(26), which declared “Municipal Ordinance No. 117 and Mayoral Resolution No. 3746 and all actions by the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) ensuing therefrom INAPPLICABLE to the plaintiff union and its members.” In said judgment, it was stated that the ordinance and the resolution “constituted a specific threat that to the constitutional rights claimed could be affected.” In other words, this judgment could inure to the benefit to those SITRAMUN workers who were dismissed pursuant to the aforementioned ordinance and resolution, which were declared inapplicable. 240. However, there is nothing in the body of evidence in the case to prove that any worker was dismissed pursuant to said ordinance and Mayoral resolution, in addition to the fact that the Commission and the common intervener failed to indicate names of alleged victims of non-compliance with said order of appeal for legal protection. 241. Therefore, non-compliance with the order of appeal for legal protection issued by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on July 27, 1998 has not been sufficiently proven since no person has been identified as an alleged victim and beneficiary of such decision. However, due to the fact that it is a final decision, if Peru dismissed any worker under the regulations found inapplicable, it must comply with said order of appeal for legal protection . B) Judgments with respect to dismissals resulting from administrative misconduct and from participation in demonstrations 242. This group of judgments comprise three judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on November 18, 1998, December 21, 1998 and April 9, 1999 (supra para. 204(37)), declaring inapplicable the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) Mayoral Resolutions which directed the dismissal of the 14 plaintiffs. In said judgments, the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) ordered to reinstate 14 out of the 15 plaintiffs to their jobs or similar positions “without back pay for lost wages.” arguments and to the submission of clarifications regarding the alleged victims filed on November 25, 2005.