-111- * * * 299. As for Article 63(1) of the Convention, the Court orders first and foremost that the injured parties be ensured the enjoyment of their rights or freedoms that were violated, through the effective enforcement of the orders of amparo, the noncompliance with which has been declared by this Court (supra para. 277). If the orders directing reinstatement of the workers to their jobs or to similar positions are not complied with, the State must order reinstatement of the victims to their positions and, should this not be possible, it must provide employment alternatives where the conditions, salaries and remunerations that they had at the time they were dismissed are respected. 300. In the event that reinstatement of the workers to their jobs or to similar positions, according to the preceding paragraph, were not possible the State, as a reparation measure, must proceed to pay the compensation prescribed for termination of employment without just cause. Compensation amounts must be fixed by the domestic authorities, taking into account the years served by each dismissed worker, the time the worker remained unjustly dismissed and the salary the worker earned, with any applicable readjustments. In case there be any disagreement or discrepancies as to the determination of the compensation amounts they must be settled finally in the domestic forum, following the local procedures, or establishing procedures for the purpose, something which includes the possibility of resorting to the authorities having jurisdiction, such as the national courts of justice. B) PECUNIARY DAMAGE 301. In this section, the Court shall address the pecuniary damage, which implies the loss of, or detriment to, the income of the victim, the expenses incurred by reason of the events and the pecuniary consequences that may have a cause-effect link with the events in the instant case, for which, when applicable, the Court fixes a compensatory amount seeking to redress the financial consequences of the violations that were determined in this Judgment,175 taking into account the acknowledgment made by the State before the Commission, the circumstances of the case, the evidence tendered, the precedents of the Court, and the arguments by the parties. 302. Regarding the alleged loss of wages sustained by the dismissed workers with respect to whom the orders of amparo ordering reinstatement were not complied with, the Court observes that three of the orders of amparo also directed back payment of the wages lost during the time they were dismissed (supra paras. 204(15), 204(42), 204(44)) and that in other two judgments it was provided to acknowledge of “the right of plaintiffs and co-plaintiffs to demand, before the authorities having jurisdiction, payment of the remunerations and other benefits which they failed to receive from the date of their dismissal up to that of their effective reinstatement to their positions” (supra para. 204(22)). As stated above (supra para. 299), Peru must comply with said judgments. 175 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al, supra note 24, para. 78; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 246; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 124.