19 Labor Court to deny them the amparo.56 This second group also requested that the Decree 25876 “be duly applied as of the date of its entering into force without causing harm to the labor rights” guaranteed in the Constitution.57 This complaint was initially deemed as founded.58 However, the ruling in question was struck down59 and a new ruling was ordered. In the new ruling, the 13th Labor Court of Lima issued a judgment declaring the complaint without merit based on the judgment issued previously by the aforementioned Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law in response to the complaint filed by the first group of workers.60 2. Scope of the violation of the right to judicial protection in this case 70. The Commission argued that “the judicial authorities concluded that the application of the decrees was not retroactive without taking into consideration the difference in the scope of each decree.” It stated that the judicial authorities “did not limit themselves to making a reasonable interpretation of applicable law.” On the contrary, they issued judgments that were manifestly arbitrary, i) in open disagreement with the guarantee of non-retroactivity provided in the Political Constitution of Peru and ii) in open disregard for the facts of the situation brought before them.” Thus, “The judicial authorities [...] did not examine the difference between the three decrees with regard to their scope, nor did they offer reasoning allowing for a reasonable understanding of the motives under which the evidently retroactive application of Decree 25876 was not incompatible with the constitutional guarantee of non-retroactivity of laws.” According to the Commission, “this arbitrariness is explained in that the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of Justice did not even make a decision on the facts based on the contents of the case file. Thus in its July 21, 1999, ruling, it stated that the automatic system for increasing remunerations that applied to the [alleged] victims had been established through Collective Bargaining Agreements. This situation was contrary to reality, as the SEDAPAL functionaries, employees and technicians were not authorized to bargain or reach agreements collectively.” Finally, the 56 The request for a writ of amparo was filed against SEDAPAL before the 13th Labor Court of Lima “for the violation of and non-compliance with express constitutional precepts on labor issues” and sought “an immediate cessation of those violations and the immediate restitution of the labor rights that have been violated.” Cf. Judgment No. 189-96-13 of the 13th Specialized Labor Court of Lima dated July 26, 1996 (Case file No. 987-94) (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 14, folios 119 to 132). 57 Judgment No. 189-96-13 of the 13th Specialized Labor Court of Lima, supra note 56, folio 120). 58 On July 26, 1996, the 13th Special Labor Court ruled to “[a]dmit the suit on the grounds that Law Decree 25876 had been retroactively applied in violation of express constitutional guarantees.” Likewise, it “[o]rdered the restitution of the remuneration decreases and deductions.” It ordered the payment of S/. 738,129.60 (seven hundred and thirty-eight thousand, one hundred and twenty-nine nuevo soles and sixty cents) to the benefit of the 49 plaintiff functionaries paid through [July] 30.” Cf. Judgment No. 189-96-13 of the 13th Specialized Labor Court of Lima, supra note 56, folios 128 and 132. 59 This judgment was declared null and voice on February 17, 1997, by part of the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, and “order[ed] that the Judge [of the 13th Court of Lima] issue a new ruling that considered the specifications of [said judgment].” The Labor Chamber considered that “the A-quo founded its order in the structure of the salary scales […] applying it for individual liquidations […] until the moment of the expedition of the judgment” and, in this sense, ordered “the forwarding of the acts to the Office of Judicial Investigations in order for it to determine the debt to each one of the petitioners until the time they were provided for in August 1993.” Judgment No. 5603-96 IDL of the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima (Case File No. 987-94) (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, appendix 2, folio 385). 60 In effect, the Court indicated that, “In a case similar to the one being heard, the Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court of the Republic dated July 21, 1999, established in a specific and final ruling on the facts and law that were the subject of the proceeding in case file No. 619-97, in which it examined exactly the same issues in dispute in this proceeding. Judgment No. 234-2000-13 JTL of the 13th Specialized Labor Court of Lima dated December 12, 2000 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 14, folios 134 to 137). It should also be emphasized that this judgment was not appealed by the workers, for which reason on January 8, 2001, the 13th Labor Court of Lima issued an order that “declared the judgment consented to.”