even the Constitutional Court, the court of last resort, denied the amparo suit simply because the dismissals were in line with the laws in force at that time. 12. In the case of MEF, the petitioners indicated that, as of 1992, the 15 alleged victims were subjected to performance evaluations. They indicated that, in January 1998, the MEF notified them that, because they had not obtained the minimum score in their performance evaluation the preceding year, they were being dismissed “because of overstaffing.” They reported that a group of dismissed employees, including the alleged victims, filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) alleging violation of their rights. They indicated that various judges of the Constitutional Court, as the court of last resort, ruled that the suit was without merits, simply because the dismissals were in line with the laws in force at that time. They added that they filed a contentious administrative suit, which was ruled inadmissible. 13. In the case of MINEDU, the petitioners indicated that, during the first semester of 1996, 39 of the alleged victims were subjected to performance evaluations. They indicated that, in October 1996, MINEDU notified them that because they had not passed their qualification test, they were dismissed “because of overstaffing.” They reported that the alleged victims filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) alleging the violation of their rights. They indicated that the various judges and even the Constitutional Court, as the last court of appeal, ruled that the suit was without merit, simply because the dismissals were in line with the laws in force at the time. 14. In the case of Petroperú, the petitioners indicated that, in January 1996, the employers of said company sent letters to the 84 alleged victims offering them a voluntary retirement plan and that if they did not accept it their employment contracts would be terminated. The petitioners said that the alleged victims decided to not accept this plan and were dismissed as a result. They reported that the Consolidated Oil Employees Union of Peru, to which the alleged victims were belonged, filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) alleging the violation of their rights. They said that both judicial instances that heard the suit ruled that it was without merit, simply because the dismissals were in line with the laws in force at that time. They added that they filed a contentious administrative suit, which was ruled inadmissible. 15. The petitioners in the four cases argued that the dismissals and the subsequent denial of justice had deeply harmed them professionally and in terms of their ability to provide for their families. They said saidthat after the administration of Alberto Fujimori, the then-President, was replaced the State recognized that the collective dismissals were irregular. They said that, on that basis, various measures were taken, such as the issuance of lists of employees dismissed irregularly and the introduction of regulations aimed at providing benefits to said persons. The petitioners stated that, despite this, many of the alleged victims were not included in those lists and did not receive any type of benefit. 16. Regarding the persons who did receive some type of benefit, they said that the State did not provide any comprehensive reparation, because it did not recognize the period of time that they were illegally and arbitrarily separated from service for the purposes of retirement, compensation, pension and other fringe and social security benefits. They added that they did not receive compensation for the damages caused by their dismissal. The petitioners agreed that comprehensive reparation should include (i) their reinstatement or redeployment in a similar position and payment of unpaid wages due, and (ii) if reinstatement is not possible, payment of compensatory damages. B. Position of the State 17. The State indicated that the collective dismissals took place in the 1990s pursuant to laws adopted by the administration at that time, that is, that of President Alberto Fujimori. The State specified the situation of the various groups of victims. That information is specified in detail in the section on proven facts. In this section, the Commission describes in general terms the various assumptions set forth by the State. 18. Thus, it said that not all the persons who were dismissed at that time, were dismissed irregularly and, therefore, there are groups of persons who are not entitled to any kind of reparation. The State submitted descriptions of the situation of the alleged victims, which are specified in detail in the section 3