8 d) The concept of “victim” may be understood as an "injured person as a result of a state act in violation of the Convention” and as a “person who has been declared a victim by the Court”. It is likely that a person falls into one or both categories. The former is the case of the 243 persons who have not been individualized by the Court for they have not been declared victims in the Judgment of the Court; consequently, no reparations have been awarded to them in the Inter-American system and no follow-up measures regarding to state obligations have been ordered; however, this does not mean that the injuries sustained by those persons do not persist; e) Although the Judgment of the Court fails to recognize the rights of those 243 persons who have not been declared victims and to order reparations in their favor, it has not declared that the injuries sustained by them have not existed or still exist. The Judgment is not aimed at denying rights to those workers who have been dismissed on illegally recognized grounds or discharged under a domestic order; and f) The Court, in its ruling on the illegal nature of certain state acts, like the failure to comply with the judgments delivered in favor of the workers, should give notice of the state acts affecting the whole group of injured persons for said violation. Even though in the Inter-American system followup measures of compliance have only been adopted regarding to 45 of the victims, the obligations of the State towards the remaining 243 victims prevails, for they have been awarded relief under the judgments delivered in the domestic system and, therefore, they are still entitled to enforce their rights as long as they prove that those judgments remain unfulfilled. 33. Arguments by the common intervener and César Passalacqua-Pereyra and Michael Lores-Góngora In their arguments on the requests for interpretation: a) The common intervener (supra para. 17) argued that: i. “The Judgment of the Court has set a way of determining the beneficiaries of the judgment who have not been identified therein so as they may be considered victims within the scope of said judgment with right to the reparations awarded thereby;” ii. Two of the obligations assigned by the Court to the State consist in the full and definite identification of the victims by the Peruvian Courts; and the enforcement of the right to the reparations awarded by the Judgment of those persons identified as and declared beneficiaries in the domestic system; iii. Paragraph 227 of the Judgment of the Court sets out the classification of the victims in the instant case in three groups. The first group gathers the victims named in the Judgment. The second group includes the victims who are not named in the Judgment but are listed in the application. The third group refers to the victims who are beneficiaries under a judgment but have not acted as applicants; this category groups the beneficiaries of the judgment of November 16, 1998, who acted through union representatives, as stated in the