-82The collection of such amounts may not be considered as a form of consent to the termination of the employment relationship either, because during the amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] proceedings the matters at issue were not related to employment rights but to fundamental constitutional rights, which must be remedied by restoring the original situation; i) the payments and deposits in court in favor of ESMLL workers were made while the amparo proceeding was still pending and in some cases the alleged beneficiaries of said deposits were living in circumstances of extreme insecurity and need, most of them being women breadwinners over 40 years of age and with few job opportunities. In fact, the increases in salaries and allowances stipulated in several collective bargaining agreements and arbitration awards were not considered in any settlement. The payment made did not cover the debts for unpaid salaries and interest accrued before dismissal; the severance pay was insignificant and illegal. The payments made constitute only part payments that, under Article 1220 of the Peruvian Civil Code, may not be regarded as actual payment insofar as the obligation was not entirely satisfied; j) they request the Court reinstatement to their former jobs or similar positions as relief for the violation of their right to employment and subsequent non-compliance with the judgments to date —even with respect to those workers who did not collect their social benefits; and k) as regards the cases that according to the State were “closed for non-suit by the plaintiff”, the alleged “closed” status in which they supposedly are was the result of the recommendations made by the “Órgano del Control Institucional de la Magistratura” (Institutional Oversight Body of the Judicial Council) (sic), which ordered this technical and administrative measure to reduce the No. of cases burdening the courts. This measure and court order do not imply the conclusion of the judgment enforcement proceedings on the grounds of non-suit by the alleged victims because this is not permitted under statute. Pursuant to Article 350(1) of the Peruvian Code of Civil Procedure nonsuit does not apply “in proceedings that have reached the enforcement of the judgment stage.” 207. The common intervener for the representatives argued that the State violated Article 25(1) of the Convention; an issue that was not included in the application filed by the Commission. As regards the alleged violation the common intervener stated that: a) the criminal complaints lodged by the alleged victims requesting investigation and punishment of the State agents responsible for the noncompliance with the judgments pronounced in favor of the alleged victims by the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) and the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) were dismissed by the criminal courts and the cases were closed. The remedies provided for in Peruvian legislation “proved ineffective” to investigate and duly punish those responsible for the non-compliance with judgments; b) “the ‘approval’ of such non-compliance with judgments by the criminal courts, were not only a violation of the right to effective judicial protection of