-101the assessment procedures and went on strike because they deemed their rights had been violated; the 30% reduction “in salaries, wages and pensions of its workers and former workers” by the Municipality, including SITRAMUN members; the requirement by the Municipality of Lima of requisites for organizing unions which could only be determined by law; the breach of the ILO Convention No. 87 by “eliminating union leaves and not recognizing the SITRAMUN - Lima Governing Board” because “its members were former workers of the Municipality, and it by withholding the workers´ contributions” to that union and giving them back to each individual worker; the intent to evict SITRAMUN-Lima from its the union premises and to revert the property of the land located in La Molina that had been granted to SITRAMUN-Lima through a collective agreement”; the non-compliance with the judgments that ordered remedies and reparations of the abovementioned violations; the dismissal of over 800 workers without following the procedure established in Legislative Decree No. 728, before the adoption of the Municipality of Lima Agreement-in-Council No. 036 of July 4, 1996, “whereby the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) was dissolved and wound up;” c) the failure of the State to comply with the judgments pronounced by the domestic courts whereby the right of the victims to be reinstated to their jobs is recognized, is a serious violation of their labor and social security rights recognized in different international instruments on the protection of human rights; d) The Peruvian court system, through the decision of its higher courts, reaffirmed the right of the alleged victims “to retain their job and continue collecting the income that allows them to earn a decent living for themselves and their families, after their unfair dismissal through irregular administrative proceedings.” However, the State has neither reinstated the workers to their jobs nor restored them the conventional benefits they had been deprived of, thus violating their labor and social security rights to the detriment of the alleged victims. The alleged victims are low-income persons; e) the actual violation of the right of the alleged victims to social security benefits occurred as their access ―and that of their dependents― to the protection coverage granted them by the then Instituto Peruano de Seguridad Social (Peruvian Social Security Institute), in their capacity of insureds in said institution, was abruptly interrupted. Such capacity as insureds “was irreversibly and abruptly ignored immediately after their unconstitutional dismissals, that have been occurring since 1996, were effected;” f) the alleged victims are still denied the right to social security, “despite the pronouncement of individual decisions by the higher courts of the Peruvian Justice that ordered their reinstatement to their jobs with the restoration of all the rights inherent, to the positions they hold, including the right to enjoy the social security protection coverage offered by the social security institutions;” g) the unfair dismissal of the alleged victims and the failure to reinstate them to their jobs as ordered by the domestic courts, caused the discontinuance of the accumulation of years of service for social security purposes, which prevented many workers from obtaining their pensions. Many workers were also denied their right to a disability pension. Such state of