7 a) Whether the Court, in its determination of the 45 victims out of the 288 persons considered by the Commission, excludes the remaining 243 victims from the Judgment of the Court despite they were able to prove the existence of dismissal orders evidencing that they were dismissed under Resolution No. 575. Moreover, they stated that “the above-mentioned judgment includes a general order that should be fulfilled regarding to all those SITRAMUN members who were dismissed under Mayoral Resolution No. 575, and that the beneficiaries thereof are individuals that can be determined.” To this respect, they attached copy of the orders of dismissal of Pablo Gonza Tito and Marcelino Isidro Huere and further stated that they were dismissed under Resolution No. 575; b) Whether “the request for execution of the judgment by the Peruvian State […] is limited to those 45 persons determined by the Court in Paragraph 249 or to all the victims affected by Municipality Resolution No. 575 according to paragraph 248 of the Judgment of the Court of February 7, 2006”; and c) Whether according to paragraph 227 of the Judgment of the Court “the Peruvian State should set aside the rights protected by the judgments awarded to [those persons] whose names are not included in the judgment delivered by the Court on February 7, 2006.” Arguments of the Inter-American Commission 32. The Commission argued that: a) Regarding to the workers who were dismissed for striking declared illegal to which judgment of November 16, 1998 refer and who were not declared victims by the Court, a similar principle to that used in the case of Montero-Aranguren et al. should be applied so that “any ruling made in connection with the violations committed against them and any pertinent compensation at this international stage does not eliminate or hinder the effective protection of their individual interests in the domestic venue;" b) Two different judicial adjudication processes may be distinguished in the paragraphs of the Judgment; on the one hand, the issue of whether the failure by the State to comply with local rulings violates the provisions of the Convention, based on generic standards regarding the declaration of the victims of said violation; and, on the other hand, the specific identity of those who have proven before the Court their capacity as victims of said violation; c) For the case of the victims of the judgment delivered on November 16, 1998, the Court sets the standard of evidence adopted according to paragraph 249 of the Judgment, i.e. submission of a dismissal order. In its report on the merits "based on the allegations presented by the parties in the proceedings and impliedly accepted by means of the acknowledgement of international responsibility” made by the State, the Commission considered as victims those 288 persons “who had declared to have been adversely affected as a result of the failure to comply with the judgment of November 16, 1998”, regardless of whether they had filed the related dismissal orders;