Promotion, the Ministry of Defense, FEMAPOR and the Union of Stevedores of Large Coastal Trade of Callao. 58 This Commission issued a Final Report, Point 5 of which established that some of the workers’ claims had been calculated inaccurately or had been omitted, encouraging the workers who believed that their calculation was incorrect to file the relevant additional claim before the corresponding court: In the case of workers with inaccurate calculations and those who were omitted, as well as those who were laid off in 1989, since the error and the omission are not sources of the right, the workers with the claims must show the corresponding judicial authority their specific claim, in order to uphold before it the right to recalculation, as the case may be. 59 57. On August 20, 2003, the Sixth Civil Court adopted Resolution 333, which approved the accounting of the statements presented by the claimants in a brief of January 1995, which totaled USD 41,688,176.00. On that same date, the Court issued Resolution 336, by which it approved the sum of the accounting presented by the claimants with respect to the workers’ educational allowance that amounted to USD 934,439.00. 60 58. Beginning on June 15, 2004, the State authorized the MEF, by Law 28,254, to make progressive payments of the social benefits to the maritime, port and river workers up to “the amount of ten million New Soles (PES 10,000,000.00)” to be charged to its institutional budget. 61 59. The State, through the MEF, began to make the gradual payments to the workers in 2004. In December 2017, the State reported that it had fully complied with the payment of USD 44,060,949.65 that it owed. 62 Neither the Commission nor the parties questioned this affirmation. C. Internal proceedings with respect to the sub-group of workers who claimed additional amounts derived from the application of the additional pay increase and other fringe benefits 60. Since March 5, 2010, and in the context of the execution of the decision of February 12, 1992, a sub-group of 2,309 63 beneficiaries of that decision, on the basis of the Final Report of the Multisectoral Commission (supra para. 56), have been judicially reclaiming before the Sixth Civil Court the correct liquidation of the additional pay increase, requesting (a) the additional pay increase; (b) the restoration of rights and social benefits; (c) the payment of the educational allowance and (d) the corresponding legal interest. 64 On December 29, 2010, the Sixth Court ordered that the MEF be incorporated as a passive party to the proceedings. 65 Cf. Supreme Decree 078-2003-MEF, of June 5, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 3132 and 3233). Cf. Commission created by Supreme Decree 078-2003-EF, Final Report, of December 5, 2003, Point 5 (evidence file, f. 46819). 60 Cf. Sixth Civil Court, Resolution 336, on Writ of Amparo presented by FEMAPOR, of August 20, 2003 (evidence file, fs. 3147 and 3148). 61 Cf. Law 28.254, of July 15, 2004 (evidence file, fs. 3150 to 3156). 62 Cf. Answering brief to the Merits Report, as well as the observations to the brief with pleadings and motions presented by the representatives Valdivia B. et al. and to the brief with pleadings and motions presented by the representative Meneses Huayra, para. 24. 63 The Court recalls that, while both the parties and the Commission refer to a sub-group of 2,317 workers, according to the evidentiary record the Court notes that this number finally should be 2,309. These persons are listed in Annex II of this judgment. 64 Cf. Recourse presented by FEMAPOR before the Sixth Civil Court, File 225-1990, in execution of the decision, of March 5, 2010 (evidence file, fs. 4110 to 4143). 65 Cf. Sixth Civil Court, Resolution 437, File 00225-1990-0-0701-JR-Cl-06, of December 28, 2010 (evidence file, f. 4148) and First Civil Chamber of the Superior Court, Resolution 04, File 225-1990-41, of June 8, 2011 (evidence file, f. 4157). 58 59 16