9 Judgment of the Court, and whose rights are protected by said Judgment; iv. Consistent with paragraph 248, whereby the Court stated that the beneficiaries of the Judgment are individuals that can be determined, in paragraph 259, the Court states that the domestic courts have jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and determine who are the workers regarding to whom the partial or total compliance with the judgments is still pending, including the Judgment of November 16, 1998. For those reasons, in paragraph 298, the Court declares the victims taking into account that domestic courts must make certain determinations as established in paragraph 259; and v. In the proceedings before the Commission, they filed copies of several dismissal orders, but the Commission did not submit said orders to the Court; and b) César Passalacqua-Pereyra and Michael Lores-Góngora (supra para. 14) argued that: i. The vacuums in the Judgment of the Court have been used to adopt arbitrary orders. Owing to the fact that "the list of beneficiaries has not been completed," domestic authorities are willing to restrict the rights of approximately 290 individuals; ii. The Court should now explain its implicit statements. The Court has expressly stated that the exhibit containing the list of victims is incomplete and that in Peru, in compliance with judicial decisions, the missing names should be reconsidered. Several domestic authorities are unwilling to accept said fact; and iii. There are other persons that consider themselves as “individuals that can be determined” as victims of the non-compliance with two domestic judgments. Arguments of the State 34. The State argued that a) The lists of victims attached to the Judgment of the Court are accurate, for the Court has already determined who the beneficiaries are. However, there are some evident cases of persons who, in spite of being expressly named in the lists, have not been declared victims on grounds of objectively provable reasons, such as: workers who were not dismissed or who were reinstated by the Municipality of Lima and maintained their status of active workers at all times; dismissed workers who retired in 1996 and have been receiving a pension ever since; workers who executed settlement agreements with the Municipality of Lima whereby they expressly accepted the dismissal and agreed to a compensation; workers who collected social benefits upon or after dismissal in acceptance thereof; and deceased workers who stand by their successors. To that respect, the State presented arguments and