17 b) a reduction was applied for the workers’ monthly remunerations already paid between January and November of 1992 based on the system of salary scales, as according to the company’s reasoning, that system had ceased to exist as of December of 1991. These attempted claw-backs took place starting in March of 199347 through deductions of 20% of the monthly salary until the return of the totality of the amounts that according to the company had been paid in error were returned; and c) starting in July 1992, monthly remunerations received by the workers were not increased in accordance with the system of salary scales. The result of this was that the last benefit derived from the scale system - related to a collective bargaining agreement - was not complied with.48 The agreement ordered an increase in the unskilled laborer salary as of July 1992. 64. The Court concludes that the effects of the implementation of the Law Decrees can be summarized as follows: i) a reduction in salaries as of December 1992; ii) retroactive collection of the payments made between January and November 1992 including the raise under the salary scales, and iii) no increase in salaries between July and November of 1992 as a consequence of the last applicable salary scale adjustment. 1.4. Judicial remedies requested against the retroactive application of the law that repealed the salary scale system 65. On May 14, 1993, an initial group of 225 workers - among them 185 of the alleged victims in this case - filed a request of amparo before the 18th Labor Court of Lima “against [SEDAPAL] for the violation of and failure to comply with constitutional labor provisions due to the consequences of the undue application of Law Decree 25876.”49 In the context of that proceeding it was stated that “the individuals requesting the remedy do not seek a declaration that Law Decree 25876 is inapplicable; rather, that this law is applicable as of the date it took effect without contradicting the spirit of the labor rights guaranteed by the Political Constitution.”50 66. On July 26, 1995, the 18th Labor Court of Lima issued the Judgment No. 2279551 that declared the petition founded and concluded that, the pertinent legal provisions, application and execution of the Salary Scale System concluded [on December] 13, 1991.” Expert Opinion of Mr. Félix Daniel Aquije Soler (case file on the Merits, tome II, folio 825). 47 Likewise the parties agreed both on this effect and on the date on which the salary deductions started to take place for the collection of what had been received previously (case file on the merits, tome I, folios 12, 106 and 154). Similarly, Report No. 023-2006-GRH established that “SEDAPAL opted to: [...] b) apply the deduction of the monthly remunerations paid to the functionaries from the months of January to November 1992, making monthly deductions starting in the month of March 1993 equivalent to 20% of remuneration until the paid amount considered to have been extra was made whole” (case file of the annexes of the answer to the application, tome I, annex 15, folio 2545). 48 Report No. 023-206-GRH determined that “SEDAPAL opted to: [...] c) not grant an increase in monthly remunerations to the functionaries under the salary scale system, obviating the increase of S/. 70.00 in the wages of employees and laborers (including unskilled laborers) agreed upon in the Collective Bargaining Agreement signed on November 30, 1992. It is worth noting that the aforementioned Collective Bargaining Agreement is applicable as of July 1992.” Report No. 023-2006-GRH, supra note 47, folio 2545. 49 Judgment No. 227-95 of the 18th Labor Court of Lima, July 26, 1995 (Case file No. 546-93) (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 10, folio 77). 50 Judgment No. 227-95 of the 18th Labor Court of Lima, supra note 49, folio 77. 51 Judgment No. 227-95 of the 18th Labor Court of Lima, supra note 49, folios 77 to 85.