because it had not been calculated on the true basic pay that the workers received. 47. On January 8, 1991, FEMAPOR broadened the complaint since the CCTM continued to erroneously apply Article 5. 45 48. On April 12, 1991, after the dissolution of the CCTM was ordered, the Second Civil Court of Callao (hereinafter “the Second Civil Court”) accepted the writ of amparo, declaring that “the additional pay increase should be applied on the basic income that the worker received at the time it is calculated and paid and not as it is being applied by taking as a reference for calculating the basic amount when the collective bargaining was initiated.” 46 This decision was confirmed on August 12, 1991 by the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Callao, which reiterated that the additional pay increase should be applied according to the terms of Article 5; in other words, on the total basic pay. 47 49. Finally, on February 12, 1992, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of the Superior Court. 48 b.2) Subsequent actions of the Executive Branch 50. On September 2, 1992, the Executive Branch issued Decree-Law 25,702, which derogated the norms on the dissolution of the CCTM and which had an impact on the payment of the social benefits of the maritime and port workers: (i) Article 4 of the Supreme Decree 054-91 PCM, which derogated a provision that would have financed the social benefits of the CCTM workers 49 and (ii) Ministerial Resolution 303-91 TC/15.03, which, as previously stated, created a special fund from multiple employers to pay the wages, entitlements and social benefits of the workers. 50 51. In view of this situation, on September 24, 1992 FEMAPOR formally requested the Ministries of Transportation and of Economy and Finances, respectively, to restore the derogated norms or, in the alternative, to apply Article 4 of Decree-Law 25,702: 51 (i) by allocating an amount equivalent to the total settlement of the maritime and port workers’ entitlements and social benefits and (ii) by assigning monthly amounts, as of January 1993, equivalent to the retirees’ statements of their pensions administered by the entity being dissolved. 45 Cf. Broadening of the claim filed by FEMAPOR, in the actions against the CCTM, on the action of amparo, before the lower court of Callao, File 2801-90, of January 8, 1991 (evidence file, fs. 3044 to 3046). 46 Cf. Second Civil Court, File 13-91, Resolution of April 12, 1991(evidence file, f. 3054). 47 Cf. Standing Civil Chamber of the Superior Court, File 120-A-91, Resolution of August 12, 1991, (evidence file, f. 3056). 48 Cf. Supreme Court, File. 2460-91, Resolution of February 12, 1992 (evidence file, f. 3058). 49 “Article 1.- Derogate, as of the date that this Decree Law enters into force, the following provisions: […] i) Article 4 of the Supreme Decree 054-91-PCM and the Ministerial Resolution 303-91-TC/15.03, referring to the loading and unloading taxes for products of international commerce, for financing the social benefits of the workers, which are the responsibility of the CCTM and of the Offices de Maritime and River Workers. Cf. Decree-Law 25,702, of September 2, 1992 (evidence file, f. 3062). 50 Cf. Ministerial Resolution 303-91 TC/1503, of April 25, 1991 (evidence file, f. 3038). 51 This article states the following: Article 4.- The Public Treasury shall transfer the equivalent amount to those persons who no longer receive the corresponding amounts due to the derogation of Article 1 (e), (f), (j) and (m). The allocation of the amounts, not included in the previous paragraph, that were derogated under the Decree-Law, equivalent to the recourses that they would no longer receive for this concept may be requested from the Ministry of the Economy and Finances, within 30 natural days after the entry into force of this norm. Cf. Decree Law 25.702, of September 2, 1992 (evidence file, f. 3062). 14