10 submitted documents on the “evident cases of persons who have not been declared victims” on grounds of any of the above-mentioned reasons; b) According to the explanation above, the list of 714 individuals attached to the Judgment of the Court, revised to avoid name repetitions, includes 378 active workers, pension beneficiaries, deceased workers, and workers who executed settlement agreements or were paid social benefits. After having been revised, the list of beneficiaries attached to the Judgment names 336 individuals, 280 of SITRAMUN and 56 of ESMLL. The State understands that only 336 workers should be declared beneficiaries under the Judgment of the Court; and c) Paragraphs 227, 248 and 249 of the Judgment of the Court should be interpreted taking into account their order of appearance. Thus, paragraph 227 includes a general view of those who might be declared victims and paragraphs 248 and 249 exclusively refer to the workers dismissed for striking. Paragraph 249 clearly sets forth that the Court considers that only 45 out of the 288 persons named in the application can be declared victims. The Court itself has excluded the remaining 243 persons, so they cannot be deemed as beneficiaries by the State. Considerations of the Court 35. The Court finds it necessary to divide this chapter as follows: (1) Considerations regarding the victims in the Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., according to the judgment of the Court; and (2) the requests for inclusion of additional victims. 1) Victims in the Case of Acevedo-Jaramillo et al., according to the judgment of the Court 36. This Court notes that the requests for interpretation refer to the victims of the non-compliance with the orders of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] issued by the domestic courts on February 6, 1997 5 and on November 16, 19986 Furthermore, the Court was requested to clarify and specify the scope of the provisions of the Judgment regarding to the total number of beneficiaries under the Judgment of February 7, 2006 (supra para. 30.f). 37. To this respect, the Court finds that the scope of the provisions of the Judgment is clear as regards the victims in the instant case. However, the Court deems it appropriate to refine the scope of paragraphs 232, 235, 245, 249, 253, 259, 265, 270, 275 and operative paragraph 3 of the Judgment of February 7, 2006, whereby the victims in the instant case for non-compliance with the abovementioned domestic judgments were declared. 38. The aforementioned orders of amparo [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] issued on February 6, 1997 and November 16, 1998 (supra para. 36) 5 Issued by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law). Issued by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada de Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law). 6