II. PROCESSING BEFORE THE COMMISSION 5. On November 11 and 12, 1998, the Commission received two communications submitted by Mrs. Jesús Mogollón and Pablo Álvarez on behalf of 24 individuals, and by the General Secretary of SUTECASA, respectively, in which the same facts were alleged. These communications were registered under No. P 91498. On February 19, 2002, August 16, 2002, May 30, 2003, and August 31, 2003 communications providing additional information were received from the petitioners. 6. On January 27, 2006, the Commission forwarded to the State the relevant sections of the petition and the later updates, asking that the State, in accordance with Article 30(3) of the IACHR Rules of Procedure, submit the observations it considered relevant within a period of two months. 7. On March 24, 2006, the Peruvian State requested an extension of this deadline, which was granted for an additional month on March 29, 2006. 8. On May 4, 2006, the State submitted its response to the petition, which was forwarded to the petitioners on May 22, 2006, asking them to submit the observations they considered relevant within a period of one month. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioners 9. To provide background, the petitioners stated that in the context of the policy on the privatization of state-owned companies, on April 28, 1991 the government selected ECASA as the first company to be privatized, for which purpose it proceeded to declare it dissolved and liquidated, forcing the resignation of more than 4,000 workers nationally, who were dismissed after six months of severely reduced compensation, ignoring the 90-91 Collective Agreement that governed those workers, particularly with respect to the salary schedule. They stated that this violation was authorized by Executive Decrees 057-90-TR and 107-90-PCM. 10. The petitioners stated that the ECASA Liquidation Committee paid what was governed by the 90-91 Collective Agreement and the salary schedule to only a privileged group of workers and creditor companies, engaging in discrimination and ignoring the Peruvian Constitution that established the priority to be given to paying compensation and fringe benefits over any other obligation. 11. They specified that it was against this action that SUTECASA filed an appeal for protection of constitutional rights (amparo) and they allege that the appeal was decided in their favor at all levels, including the Constitutional Court. They added that at the time they submitted the petition – after seven years of litigation – the process was in the stage at which the decision is executed but they had not obtained payment of the “unpaid compensation” even though on February 16, 1993 the decision on appeal favorable to SUTECASA became definitely, solidly, and inalterably res judicata by resolution of the Supreme Court, which ordered publication of its resolution. 12. According to the petitioners, failure to carry out the decision has been due to “delaying tactics,” including those on the part of official experts. 13. The attachments provided by the petitioner indicate that the first instance decision on appeal was dated April 22, 1991; that the second instance decision was dated September 27, 1991; that on September 14, 1992 the Chamber