11 resolved the writs of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] filed by the Union on behalf of its members; that is to say, they differ from other judgments referring to beneficiaries whose names were not listed in the writs or in the domestic judgments issued in connection therewith. As regards those judgments, in paragraphs 235 and 248 of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, the Court stated that the same “include[…] a general order that should be fulfilled regarding to all those SITRAMUN members who were dismissed under Resolution” No. 033-A-96 in one case, and under Resolution No. 575 in the other. Moreover, this Court noted that the beneficiaries of said judgments are individuals that can be “determined”. 39. In paragraphs 236 and 249 of the Judgment, the Court then proceeded to identify the victims based on the evidence submitted in the proceedings, in relation to the aforementioned domestic rulings. 40. As regards the above-mentioned Judgment of February 6, 1997, the Commission, in its application, identified 355 workers as alleged victims; nonetheless, copies of the orders of dismissal of 354 of those workers have been submitted to the Court. In order to make the list of victims, the Court took into account the above-referred orders submitted to the Court evidencing that those workers were dismissed under Resolution No. 033-A-96. The names of those 354 individuals are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 41. As regards the above-mentioned Judgment of November 16, 1998, the Commission, in its application, identified 288 workers as alleged victims; nonetheless, copies of the orders of dismissal of 45 of those workers have been submitted to the Court. In order to make the list of victims, the Court took into account the above-referred orders submitted to the Court evidencing that those workers were dismissed under Resolution No. 525. 033-A-96. The names of those 45 individuals are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 42. The Court also deems it appropriate to highlight that, although there may be more beneficiaries of the domestic orders of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] of February 6, 1997 and November 16, 1998, in the InterAmerican proceedings pending before this Court it could only be proven that the victims of the first judgment are the 354 individuals named in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006, and that the victims of the second judgment are the 45 individuals named in said Exhibit. Said determination is final in the case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al. 43. The Court belatedly observes that, after rendering the Judgment, other dismissal orders were submitted. According to the provisions of Article 67 of the Convention, the Judgment of the Court is final and the Court lacks powers to make amendments regarding the victims based on the dismissal orders that did not form part of the body of evidence weighted at the time the Judgment was delivered. * * * 44. Furthermore, the Court was requested to “clarify and specify the scope of the provisions of the Judgment” regarding to the total number of beneficiaries of the Judgment of the Court (supra para. 30.f).