13 49. The Court considers that it is clear that the final decision on the matter of who are the workers regarding to whom the partial or total compliance with the judgments is still pending must be exclusively adopted by the aforementioned domestic courts. Therefore, it is not incumbent upon this Court to render a decision on the allegations of Peru on the “evident cases of persons who have not been declared victims” and the supporting documents (supra para. 34.a). 50. Furthermore, this category of domestic judgments includes the judgment rendered on July 8, 1998 referring to the dissolution of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) ESMLL. The domestic court with jurisdiction to enforce said judgment determined that it should be executed regarding to 56 workers. Such determination served as basis for the Court to declare in paragraph 275 of its Judgment that those individuals are the victims in the instant case of the non-compliance with the judgment of July 8, 1998. The names of those persons are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court. The Court then provided for the way in which the State must proceed regarding to the resolution of the motion of appeal that, at the date of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, was still pending. b) Victims whose names are listed in the writ of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and right] that gave rise to the domestic judgment 51. This category includes the judgment of June 6, 1997.8 As stated by the Court in paragraph 232 of the Judgment, in the domestic judgment the victims were not named, instead, they were referred to as "the claimants". Thus, in order to determine the names of the victims of the non-compliance with the above-mentioned judgment, the Court took into account the writs of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] that gave rise to it. The names of those individuals are listed in the schedule of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 52. It is necessary to highlight that the provisions of paragraphs 47 to 49 of the instant Judgment, regarding the decisions to be adopted by the domestic courts with jurisdiction to enforce the judgments, are also applicable to judgment of June 6, 1997, according to paragraphs 254 to 259 of the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006. 53. According to what has been explained in paragraph 49 of the instant Judgment, it is to be inferred that, at the time of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, this Court considered that it was probable that the judgment of June 6, 1997 was partially or totally executed regarding to the 30 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 of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, the Court established that the domestic courts with jurisdiction to enforce the 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 non-compliance 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 8 Issued by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law).