the Maritime and River Labor Control Commission. It stated that Article 4 of Decree-Law N° 25702 provided as follows: The other entities that were to receive the taxes derogated in this Decree-Law and not included in the previous paragraph may request that the Ministry of Economy and Finance, within a period not to exceed 30 calendar days counting from the date this law takes effect, allocate an amount equivalent to the resources that they would have collected for that purpose. 24. The State went on to state that, by Supreme Decree N° 013-92-TCC, the Ministry of Economy and Finance was authorized to provide the resources needed to pay the benefits to which the beneficiaries of the vested interest fund of the former welfare system for stevedores in Callao port were entitled. It added that FEMAPOR submitted its requests to the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Transportation within the legal period of time, on September 24, 1992. It was formally stated in these letters of request that the derogation of Article 4 of Supreme Decree N° 054-91-PCM and Ministerial Resolution N° 30391-TC/15.03 had been done in error, as the resources which they generated had been confused as taxes. Those letters included a request that, by annulment of the judgment derogating the legal provisions in question or by application of Article 4 of Decree-Law No. 25702, an amount equivalent to the total social benefits and entitlements be allocated to the maritime and river workers, and, effective January 1992, the monthly amounts equivalent to the pension schedules of pensioners in the systems administered by the dissolution system be allocated as well. 25. The State informed the IACHR that on August 11, 1997, FEMAPOR requested that, as part of the execution of judgment of the legal action against the CCTM, the Ministry of Economy and Finance be called upon to pay the amount owed to the maritime and river workers, under penalty of otherwise hindering attachment of government property. It added that by order dated January 15, 1998, the judge found the request formulated by FEMAPOR without merit, and gave as grounds for his decision the fact that the request was addressed to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, hence the request was to be answered by a resolution, as this was the appropriate administrative procedure. 26. The State reported that FEMAPOR appealed the decision of January 15, 1998, which was confirmed by the competent higher court, as it was of the opinion that the Ministry of Economy and Finance was not petitioned and so the request was without merit. It added that FEMAPOR requested that a vocal dirigente be designated in this instance, since it was of the opinion that three votes are required for a decision. FEMAPOR therefore asked that the decision be nullified. The State indicated that the Court found the request to be without merit. It added that FEMAPOR filed an appeal based on procedural violations of the lower court, which was declared inadmissible. It indicated that on August 27, 1998, FEMAPOR filed an appeal for refusal by the lower court to allow the appeal [recurso de queja] , which the Supreme Court declared inadmissible on January 28, 1999. 27. It concluded by summarizing that by Article 1(I) of Decree-Law Nº 25702, published in the Official Gazette “El Peruano” on September 2, 1992, Article 4 of Supreme Decree N° 054-91-PCM dated March 9, 1991 and Ministerial Resolution Nº 303-91-TC/15.03 of April 26, 1991 were derogated. These instruments referred to taxes on the loading and unloading of products of international trade meant to finance the social benefits of workers under the responsibility of the Maritime Labor Control Commission and the Maritime and River Labor Offices. It added that the Decree-Law in question established in Article 4, second paragraph, that the entity to receive the taxes, in this case the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers of Peru (FEMAPOR), could request the Ministry of Economy and Finance to