6 Questions and requests asserted in the requests for interpretation 30. In the applications filed on May 29, 2006 (supra para. 3) Manuel Saavedra Rivera and Héctor Paredes-Márquez requested the Court: a) To include Calixta Sánchez-Cabello as beneficiary of the Judgment delivered by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) on February 6, 1997. They stated that: by Resolution No. 2432 she was dismissed as a result of an assessment made under Resolution No. 33-A96; therefore, she should be considered a beneficiary of said judgment; in paragraph 35 of the application, when expressly referring to the workers dismissed under Resolution No. 33-A-96, the Commission failed to include 38 workers, including the above-named worker; and Sánchez-Cabello is also a beneficiary of the final judgment of the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) rendered on December 18, 1998, ordering that things be reinstated to the conditions prior to the violation. They attached a copy of the order dismissing the above-named worker; b) To include Thomas Ccahuancama-Ccerhuayo as beneficiary of the judgment of the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) rendered on September 23, 1998. They stated that in said judgment, Ccahuancama-Ccerhuayo was wrongfully omitted as beneficiary. However, by Order of October 13, 1998, the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) redressed the mistake including the above-named worker in the judgment of September 23, 1998 as one of the plaintiff-beneficiaries thereof. They attached a copy of the order of October 13, 1998; c) To include, as beneficiaries of the Judgment of the Court, 11 workers who were dismissed on grounds of redundancy or resulting from their assessment by Resolution No. 3775 of December 5, 1999, who filed an application against said dismissal Resolution No. 3776, and who were awarded a final judgment by the Constitutional Court on March 30, 2004 ordering reinstatement to their job positions. They attached a copy of the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court; d) To include 56 workers as beneficiaries of the judgment rendered by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Public Law Specialized Chamber) on November 16, 1998. They stated that said workers were dismissed under Resolution No. 575, and filed copy of the 43 dismissal orders. They further asserted that the Commission considered them as alleged victims in the application. e) To extend the effects of the acknowledgment made by the State to the persons who request to be recognized as victims under the doctrine of estoppel; and f) To “clarify and specify the scope of the provisions of the Judgment” regarding to the total number of beneficiaries of the Judgment of the Court. 31. In the application filed on May 30, 2006, (supra para. 4) Pablo Gonza Tito and Marcelino Isidro Huere referred to Judgment of November 16, 1998 "rendering legally ineffective Resolution No. 575 of April 1, 1996 […] that declared the strike illegal” and to which respect they enquired: