VII FACTS 42. In this chapter, the Court will establish the facts of the case on the basis of the factual framework submitted to it by the Commission with respect to (i) the background information; (ii) the domestic proceedings initiated by all the maritime and port workers, and (iii) the additional subsequent claims initiated by a sub-group \of 2,317 39 maritime and port workers. A. Background information 43. This case concerns 4,090 40 maritime and port workers organized locally into unions and affiliated nationally with the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (hereinafter “FEMAPOR”) of Peru, who until March 11, 1991 worked on a rotational basis under the control and rules of the Maritime Labor Control Commission (hereinafter “the CCTM”), a dependency of the Ministry of Defense, which was charged with regulating and enforcing the existing work rules related to maritime work, as well as to oversee their compliance. 44. That same day, due to the “serious economic-financial crisis” of the CCTM that prevented it from “continuing to comply with the ends and objectives for which it was created,” 41 the workers were dismissed, the CCTM was dissolved and a Commission of Dissolution of that agency was created with certain obligations, such as payment of the workers’ entitlements and social benefits. 42 In order to collect the wages, entitlements and social benefits of the workers, the Government issued Ministerial Resolution 303-91 TC/15.03, by which it created a fund from multiple employers that averaged USD 1,300,000. 43 B. Domestic proceedings regarding the total number of alleged victims b.1) First writ of amparo 45. On August 20, 1990, prior to the dissolution of the CCTM, FEMAPOR presented a writ of amparo before a lower court of Callao against the CCTM because it considered that Article 5 of Law 25,177 was being applied incorrectly. That article reads as follows: Article 5. The additional pay increase referred to in Supreme Decree 025-88-TR, which is to be granted as of July 1, 1989 to the maritime, river and lake workers at the ports of the Republic, shall be applied on the total basic pay that they receive. 46. FEMAPOR claimed that there had been an erroneous application of the additional pay increase, 44 https://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/asuntos/federacion_nacional_de_trabajadores_maritimos_y_portuarios_20_05_21.pdf 39 The Court notes that, while both the parties and the Commission refer to a sub-group of 2,317 workers, according to the evidence file, the final number is 2,309. 40 The Court underlines that this is the number of victims who have been brought before it and it is not necessarily the number that corresponds to the totality of the persons who were affiliated to FEMAPOR at the time of the events and were part of the domestic proceedings regarding this case. As determined in the section of Prior Consideration (Chapter V), the total of alleged victims in this case is 4,090 (see supra paras. 30 to 34). 41 Cf. Supreme Decree 054-91 PCM, of March 11, 1991 (evidence file, f. 3035). 42 Cf. Supreme Decree 054-91 PCM, of March 11, 1991 (evidence file, fs 3035 and 3036). 43 Cf. Ministerial Resolution 303-91 TC/1503, of April 25, 1991 (evidence file, f. 3038). 44 Supreme Decree 010-86-TR established that the Additional Pay Increase as a mechanism to increase the remuneration with reference to the variations in the cost of living. 13