-95253. As explained in paragraph 227 of this Judgment, the victims of the noncompliance with eight of the orders of amparo (supra para. 250) are the persons listed as plaintiffs in said judgments, while the victims of the non-compliance with the judgment of November 16, 1998, are the 45 persons listed as the beneficiaries of such judgment (supra para. 249) who are included in the list of victims attached hereto. * * * Arguments on the exclusion of alleged victims from the scope of the judgments on dismissals due to job assessments or redundancy, administrative misconduct and participation in demonstrations and in strikes declared illegal. 254. The Court deems it important to mention certain arguments advanced by the parties regarding the persons that must be deemed the alleged victims in reference to the judgments on dismissals ordering their reinstatement that have been analyzed in the preceding paragraphs (supra paras. 229 to 253). 255. In the complaint, the Commission stated that not all the persons who filed appeals for legal protection [enforcement of the constitutional guarantee for protection of civil rights] and were successful are alleged victims in the instant case. As regards the judgment of June 6, 1997 (supra para. 204(15)) the Court said that 27 out of the 30 plaintiffs “executed an agreement on judgment compliance with the Municipality of Lima” and, consequently, it did not include them in the complaint. 256. Likewise, the State has represented that, upon obtaining the order of amparo in their favor, some plaintiffs had made out-of-court settlements with the Municipality of Lima, and it submitted a listing certified under oath by the Asesor de la Sub Gerencia de Personal de la Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Counsellor of the Office of the Assistant Manager for Staff Affairs of the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) mentioning the alleged victims that, in his opinion, should be excluded. 257. On the other hand, the common intervener has pointed out that there are “outof-court settlements […] that were executed after the pronouncement of the judgments by the court of last resort and, pursuant to Article 334 of the Code of Civil Procedure [,] such agreements can only be made before a judgment is issued[. … However,] Article 339 of the Code of Civil Procedure [provides that] in those cases where a judgment rendered becomes final and enforceable, any matter regarding discharge of the obligation contained in the judgment agreement may be agreed upon.” The common intervener stated he leaves: “the decision regarding this group of [alleged] victims to the high discretion of the Honorable Court.” 258. As regards the determination of the alleged victims, in its brief filed on January 9, 2006 (supra para. 102) the Commission stated that “owing to the position the State adopted only after filing the answer to the application”, the “evidentiary elements” the Court has before it in order to determ the alleged victims have varied, and therefore it concludes that “the need for a court determination of such issue has arisen.” 259. The Court points out that documents have been submitted in order to prove that, after the judgments were issued, various measures have been adopted to comply with said judgments in connection with some persons. As regards this issue,