28 the parties out, and the failure to reach an agreement.93 99. Before the Court, the representative and the State have submitted expert witness reports calculating the pecuniary damages that the victims should receive.94 The Tribunal observes that that calculation involves a certain degree of complexity, taking into account that it is not possible to carry out a general calculation that would be applicable to all the workers. On the contrary, each of the expert witness reports prepared a caseby-case calculation. Despite this complexity and taking into account that approximately 18 years have passed without the victims having access to domestic courts for determining the indemnity they are owed, the Court will weigh the evidence available in the case file and rule on the dispute between the parties over the criteria used to calculate the amount in question. 100. To start with, the Tribunal recalls that the expert witness reports intended to quantify the scope of the damages caused by the human rights violation must include an argumentative structure that allows the Tribunal to understand them and weigh them along with the rest of the body of evidence, in keeping with the rules of sound judgment. This is even more relevant when the expert witness reports resort to technical expertise beyond that of the Court,95as in this case. 101. In this regard, the Court notes that both expert reports indicate various standards considered at the time the calculations on the scope of pecuniary damages were effectuated in this case. Taking this into account, the expert witness report submitted by the representative takes into consideration dates, standards and categories, as well as several elements and criteria96 to make the calculation through 2010. For its part, the 93 The formation of the commission was established through Supreme Resolution No. 226-2009-PCM of September 2, 2009. According to the resolution forming the high-level Commission, once SEDAPAL presented a series of documents and the petitioners presented evidence to be considered (optional), the Commission would have 20 working days to evaluate the documentation. Where necessary, the high-level Commission could summon the parties. Once this time period was up, the members of the Union could request a chance to speak. Once these steps have been taken, the high-level Commission would have 20 working days (no deadline extensions permitted) to prepare a final report that must be submitted to the President of the State Legal Defense Council. This report would issue a ruling with regard to the reach of the IACHR recommendation as well as the mechanisms for implementing it. The high-level Commission had a maximum operational time period of 90 days from September 11, 2009, the date on which the high-level Commission was launched. Supreme Order N° 226-2009-PCM of September 2, 2009 (case file of the answer to the application, tome IX, annex 6, folios 2486 to 2489). In its Reports of September 11 and October 7, 2009, before the Inter-American Commission, the State indicated that the Commission “and had sessioned four times, once in the presence of the SEDAPAL and approximately 120 victims (out of a total of 233). However, on January 11, 2010, the State reported on the internal negotiations that “failed at the domestic level.” The State indicated “that the high-level Commission held 13 closed-door sessions and two sessions attended by the petitioners and the SEDAPAL. It highlighted that the Commission ‘[gave] the petitioners access to an appropriate and effective remedy that was able to provide reparations for the violation of their rights due to the application of law 25876 and for the denial of judicial protection in response to the complaint submitted.’” The State noted that the representative had said “that the current amount they are requesting for reparations is equivalent to 17 million dollars.” The State added that “the extreme difference between the positions of the parties, who will not budge in their demands (...) explains the Commission’s failure.” Finally, the State indicated that the “Special State’s Attorney’s Office attempted to broker a rapprochement; however that was not possible either for the same reasons.” (case file on the Merits, tome I, folio 9). 94 Cf. Expert witness report presented by Felix D. Aquije Soler supra note 29, folios 2568 a 2668 and Expert report of Mrs. Lily Isabel Albornoz Castro, supra note 40, folios 1622 a 1627. 95 Cf. Case of Chaparro Álvarez and Lapo Íñiguez v. Ecuador. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, para. 230. 96 Pursuant to the text of the cited expert report, “the elements of judgment” used to calculate are: “date of hire,” “date of dismissal or resignation (for those no longer working there), “salary group,” “category,” “salary scale,” “raise in unskilled laborer remuneration, July 1992 S/. 70.00,” “base worker remuneration through November 1992,” and “base worker remuneration through December 1992.” , annex 1, folios 1900 to folio 2440). Expert report of Mrs. Lily Isabel Albornoz Castro, supra note 40, folio 1626. The expert witness report submitted by the representative does not provide an exhaustive explanation of the formula used for calculating the sums that it offers, for which reason it is not possible to repeat the calculations in such a way as to arrive at the same conclusions. However, from the tables provided in the case file, the Court notes that the