-109- i. the pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensations the State deems applicable are those established by laws passed in order to settle this kind of situations, especially Law No. 27803, as regulated by Supreme Decree No. 014-2002-TR; ii. the conveyance of the lands located at La Molina “has originated acts of corruption defying description by union leaders and legal counselors. To insist upon such a grant would only imply to extend the possibilities of undue enrichment and corruption of persons who are not invested as legitimate leaders of the SITRAMUN;” iii. as regards the request for public acknowledgment of State responsibility and for apologies, Peru “has acknowledged its responsibility and acted accordingly by passing Laws No. 27452, No. 27586 and No. 27803. Likewise, it reaffirms its acceptance of the conclusions and recommendations of the impartial commissions in all those cases where the latter have determined the existence of unfair dismissals;” iv. regarding the request that an investigation be conducted, “[th]e unbiased and effective investigation of the criminal actions committed under the leadership of the SIN during last decade is being conducted by Peruvian courts. Such investigations have incriminated, not the failure to comply with such judgments, but rather the way such judgments have been perpetrated, for which reason their authors ―including some of the persons listed as alleged victims in the instant case― have criminal suits pending against them before anti-corruption courts;” and v. with respect to the claim that the domestic law on judgment enforcement must be amended, “domestic law has been amended in order to face the extremely serious cases of corruption discovered. The number of suits pending before the four (4) anti-corruption courts and the Superior Chamber that it has been necessary to create, the number of persons prosecuted ―including some of those who are alleged victims in the instant case, and the number of them that are under police custody or under domiciliary detention are sufficient evidence of the aforementioned;” and e) as regards costs and expenses, the State indicated that it has been forced to appear before the Court to defend the legal order and show that, in the “great majority” of the cases, the claims filed are invalid and groundless. “Therefore, it deems that it must be released from paying expenses and costs, as its reasons to intervene in the suit not only are sustainable, but justified to the fullest extent.” Considerations of the Court 294. As stated in the preceding chapters, the Court has decided that the State is responsible for the violation of Articles 25(1) y 25(2)(c) of the Convention, as related to Article 1(1) thereof, in the terms of paragraph 277. In its precedents, this Court has determined that it is a principle of international law that any breach of an international obligation which has caused damage entails the obligation to repair it