12 45. In the Judgment, the Court analyzed the non-compliance with the different domestic judgments; therefore, in order to clarify this issue, the Court deems it appropriate to note that several criteria were applied in the determination of the victims of the non-compliance with the domestic judgments considered in the instant case, according to the specific type of judgment, to wit: a) victims whose names are listed in the domestic judgment; b) victims whose names are listed in the writ of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and right] that gave rise to the domestic judgment; c) victims whose names are listed in the evidence submitted to this Court, and whose names were not listed in the writ of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and right] or in the domestic judgment because the applications were filed by the Union on behalf of its members; and d) victims who must be determined by the domestic courts with jurisdiction to enforce domestic judgments. a) Victims whose names are listed in the domestic judgment 46. This category includes 15 domestic judgments.7 In paragraphs 232, 245 and 253 of the Judgment, the Court stated that the victims of those judgments are the individuals whose names are listed in those judgments in their capacity as plaintiffs and joint plaintiffs. The names of those individuals are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 47. At this point, it is worth noticing that regarding to this group of 15 judgments, in paragraph 259 of the Judgment under the title “Arguments on exclusion of alleged victims from the scope of the judgments on dismissals due to job assessments or redundancy, administrative misconduct and participation in demonstrations and in strikes declared illegal”, the Court noted that: documents have been submitted in order to prove that, after the judgments were issued, various measures have been adopted to comply with said judgments in connection with some persons. As regards this issue, the opinion of the Court is that the domestic courts having jurisdiction to enforce the judgments on dismissals must adopt a final decision on the matter of who are the workers regarding to whom the partial or total compliance with the judgments is still pending. 48. It is to be inferred that, at the time the Judgment was delivered, this Court considered that it was probable that the 15 judgments were partially or totally executed regarding to some of the persons identified as victims therein, and whose names are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of February 7, 2006. Therefore, in paragraph 259, the Court established that the domestic courts with jurisdiction to enforce judgments must adopt a final decision on the matter of who are the workers regarding to whom the partial or total compliance with the judgments is still pending. In other words, said individuals are victims of the noncompliance with the domestic judgments, but in the above-mentioned determinations, the domestic courts might find that there are fewer persons regarding to whom the compliance with the domestic judgment is pending and, therefore, not all of them would benefit from the compensations provided for by this Court in the Judgment. Judgments of April 3, May 13, July 14, September 23, October 16, November 11, November 18 and December 21, 1998; and March 31, two of April 9, June 23, two of August 20 and December 22, 1999. 7