They added, however, that the second paragraph of Article 4 of that Decree-Law N° 25702 established as follows: “Other entities that were to receive the taxes derogated under this Decree-Law and not included in the previous paragraph may submit a request to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, within a period not to exceed 30 calendar days, counting from the date this law enters into force, to the effect that the Ministry allocate to it an amount equivalent to the funds that it failed to collect as a result of this Decree-Law.” 13. Petitioner pointed out that on September 24, 1992, that is within the period established by Article 4 of Decree-Law N° 25702, the petitioners delivered official letters Nos. 114-92 and 117-92, to the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Economy, respectively. In those letters, FEMAPOR formally requested that the derogated legal provisions be reinstated or, failing that, that they do as follows pursuant to Article 4 of DecreeLaw N° 25702: a) Allocate an amount equivalent to the total settlement of maritime and river workers’ social benefits and entitlements; b) Allocate monthly amounts, starting in January 1993, equivalent to the pension statements of pensioners in the systems administered by the liquidated system. 14. Petitioner states that the provisions of Decree-Law N° 25702, in the part derogating Article 4 of Supreme Decree N° 054-91 PCM, and the provisions of Ministerial Resolution N° 303-91 TC/15.03, in regard to the provisions of its Article 4, constitute a subrogation of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, as the entity with specific responsibility for payment of social benefits and entitlements of maritime workers incumbent on the obligated Ministry prior to issuance of Decree-Law Nº 25702, since both Ministries are inseparable parts of the Peruvian State. 15. Petitioner states that, as a consequence, on August 11, 1997, FEMAPOR requested that, in execution of the judgment issued by the Supreme Court on February 12, 1992 as res judicata, the Ministry of Economy and Finance be summoned to make the payment of the amount owed the maritime and river workers, under penalty of otherwise hindering attachment of government property. Petitioner added that both the competent judge as well as the two vocales [voting members] of the Civil Division of the High Court of Callao decided to exonerate the Ministry of Economy and Finance of that legal responsibility, without taking into account the existence of Decree-Law Nº 25702. Petitioner indicated that there was a dissenting vote by one of the vocales, and even though the Civil Division sitting in judgment should have called one or two more vocales, as required, until obtaining the concurrence of three vocales, it did not do so. Petitioner indicated that it filed a complaint in this regard with the Social Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court. 16. In an addition to its complaint dated February 12, 2000, petitioner stated that on December 28, 1999, it received a decision from the Social Constitutional Division of the Supreme Court, which found the complaint lodged to be without merit and closed the record. 17. Petitioner stated that failure to comply with the judgment issued on February 12, 1992 by the Supreme Court caused serious damage to all the workers affected by that noncompliance, and to their family members, all of whom had sunk into a situation of poverty that prevented them from satisfying their minimum needs so that they could live in dignity. B. Position of the State 18. The State indicated that in 1935, a Supreme Decree established the Maritime Labor Control Commission (CCTM), the agency that regulated, controlled, and managed the various port activities. It added that by Supreme Decree N° 054-91-PCM dated March 11,