a writ of amparo, which was declared without merit on June 14 by the Third Constitutional Court of Lima. 76 This decision was confirmed by the Second Constitutional Chamber of Lima. 77 64. The MEF then filed a writ of amparo before the First Constitutional Court of Lima requesting that the resolution of June 19, 2013, which forwarded the matter to the Office of Judicial Expert Examinations so that the expert might establish the amount corresponding to each worker for the correct application of the additional pay increase, be left without effect. During this process, a precautionary measure was adopted that suspended the effects of the resolution. The measure was left without effect on April 7, 2021 when the First Constitutional Court declared the request without merit. 78 By Resolution 13, of May 18, 2021, that court also left the precautionary measure without effect. 79 65. At the time of the delivery of this judgment, it is alleged that the State had not complied with the payment to the sub-group of 2,309 workers in the terms established in the Expert Report that was approved by the judiciary. The obligation to make this payment will be analyzed in the following chapter. According to the representatives and not refuted by the State, most of the alleged victims are older than 70 years of age and more than 800 have died to date. VIII MERITS 66. This case concerns the alleged failure to execute a February 12, 1992 decision by the Supreme Court on a writ of amparo that favored 4,090 80 maritime, port and river workers. 67. Bearing in mind the arguments of the parties and of the Commission, the Court will first examine the alleged violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and to judicial protection in relation to the duty to respect and guarantee the rights and to adopt provisions of domestic law to the detriment of 4,090 alleged victims and to the detriment of a sub-group of workers who continued to present their monetary claim before the courts. The Court will then analyze the alleged harm that the non-compliance of the judgment had on the rights to private property and to work to the detriment of the 4,090 alleged victims in this case. Having received File 225-1991 remitted by the Standing Civil Chamber of this Court, to which is attached Resolution 538, dated March 16, 2016, which confirms the order contained in Resolution 529 of July 1, 2016; therefore, COMPLY WITH THE ORDER […]. Cf. Sixth Civil Court, Resolution 540, of May 23, 2017 (evidence file, F. 4325). 76 Cf. Third Constitutional Court of Lima, Resolution of June 14, 2017 (evidence file, f. 63003 and ff.). 77 Cf. Second Constitutional Court of Lima, Resolution of May 8, 2018 (evidence file, f. 63010 and ff.). 78 Cf. First Constitutional Court, Resolution 34, of April 7, 2021 (evidence file, f. 63257 and ff.). 79 Cf. First Constitutional Court, Resolution 13, of May 17, 2021 (evidence file, f. 63297). 80 El Court repeats that this is the number of victims that is included in the case before the Court and does not necessarily correspond to the total of persons who were affiliated with the FEMAPOR at the time of the events and were part of the domestic proceedings that are the object of this judgment. In addition, as determined in Chapter 5 (Prior Consideration), the total number of alleged victims is, in principle, 4,090, unless later determinations are made in the chapter on the merits (see supra paras. 30 to 34). 18