I INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. The case submitted to the Court. – On July 26, 2019, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Inter-American Commission” or “the Commission”) submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers against the Republic of Peru (hereinafter “the State” or “Peru”). According to the Commission, this case concerns the alleged infraction of the right to judicial protection due to the failure to comply with a decision on a writ of amparo by the Supreme Court of Justice of Peru (hereinafter “the Supreme Court”) delivered on February 12, 1992 (hereinafter also “the decision of February 12”), which fixed the method of calculating the additional pay increase of 4,091 [sic 2] former maritime, port and river workers. It added that 2,317 3 beneficiaries of the original decision have continued their judicial claim since 2010, arguing that the computation of the payment of social benefits was erroneous. The Commission considered that, with respect to those workers, the violation continues to the present date and that the lapse of more than 25 years without full compliance of the Supreme Court’s decision was “by any lights” longer than could be deemed reasonable The Commission concluded that the State had violated Articles 8(2), 21(1), 21(2), 25(1) and 25(2)(c), read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof. 2. The following proceedings took place before the Commission: a) Petition. – On November 10, 1998, the representatives 4 lodged the initial petition before the Commission. b) Admissibility Report. – On October 10, 2001, the Commission adopted Admissibility Report No. 86/01, by which it declared the petition admissible. 5 c) Report on the Merits. – On May 9, 2018, the Commission, pursuant to Article 50 of the Convention, adopted the Report on the Merits No. 66/18 (hereinafter also “Merits Report”), in which it arrived at a series of conclusions 6 and formulated various recommendations to the State. d) Notification to the State. – The Merits Report was notified to the State on July 26, 2018. In its first report, the State “totally denied” that there was an issue of general interest regarding the failure to comply with the decisions. 3. Submission to the Court. – On July 26, 2019, after having granted the State three extensions, the Commission submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court the totality of the facts and human rights violations described in the Merits Report “due to the necessity of obtaining justice and reparations.” 7 The Court preliminarily notes that, although the Commission refers to 4,091 alleged victims in its Merits Report, according to the reasoning and the determination in Chapter V (Preliminary Consideration) of this judgment, the number of alleged victims in this case 4,090 (see infra paras. 30 to 34). 3 The Court preliminarily notes that, although both the parties and the Commission refer to a sub-group of 2,317 workers, according to the evidentiary file in this case this number should be 2,309. These persons are listed in Annex II of this judgment (see infra para. 60 and footnote 63). 4 Sergio S. Valdivia Ayala, Víctor J. Guerrero Cassuso, Julio G. Rossi Mérida and María Luisa G. Valdivia represented a group of the alleged victims before the Court. Annex I of this judgment includes the names of the victims in this case and the names of their respective representatives. 5 The Report was notified to the parties on October 24, 2001. 6 The Commission concluded that Peru was responsible for violating Articles 1, 21(1), 21(2), 25(1) and 25(2)(c) of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the persons included in the sole annex to the Merits Report. 7 As its delegates before the Court, the Commission named Commissioner Joel Hernández García and the then 2 4