failure to execute judgments on the equalization of their pensions and the reimbursement of amounts they failed to receive owing to the application of Decree 673. The Court emphasizes that guarantees of non-repetition must be ordered in cases in which the pension rights of vulnerable groups have been violated. 225. Consequently, as a guarantee of non-repetition, the Court finds it appropriate to order the State to create a list that identifies: (a) other members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT who are not among the victims in this case, and (b) other persons who, while not members of this association, are discharged or retired employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence in a similar situation to the victims in this case, in that they have been the beneficiaries of a judicial ruling or an administrative decision – either in the context of an amparo proceeding or any other judicial remedy or administrative procedure against the application of Decree 673 – that recognizes, restitutes or grants the right to a pension, the execution of which has not started or is still ongoing. 226. The State shall be responsible for: (a) creating and managing the list, on which it will register and identify adequately all the persons who meet the conditions indicated in this measure, and (b) collecting, reviewing and recording the information and/or documentation of the judicial proceedings, conditions of employment while they worked for the State (position, category, salary, length of service, date of retirement/discharge, etc.) and any other information or document necessary to fully execute the judgments issued in their favor. 227. For the creation of this list, the State has six months from notification of the judgment. Once the list is created, the State shall, for three years, provide an annual report on the progress made regarding this guarantee of non-repetition. The Court will assess this information at the stage of monitoring compliance with this judgment and will rule in this regard. […] [Eighth operative paragraph] The State shall create, within six months of notification of this judgment, a list in order to settle cases similar to this one, as established in paragraphs 225 to 227 of this judgment. 31. The Court considers that the foregoing paragraphs should be interpreted in relation to the rest of the judgment, as well as the arguments that were presented by the parties and the observations of the Commission regarding the need to recognize guarantees of non-repetition in this case. Therefore, the Court considers that the judgment is clear that the measures of restitution and/or compensation for non-pecuniary damage were ordered in favor of the 597 persons indicated in Annex 2 of the judgment (supra paras. 18 and 19), who constituted the injured party pursuant to Article 63(1) of the Convention. However, the fact that only these persons were considered victims in the judgment does not ignore the fact that the rights of other members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT, and also other persons who were employed by SUNAT – although they were not recognized as victims in the case – could be impaired owing to the application of Decree 673, and that their pension rights could have been recognized by an internal judicial ruling or administrative decision that has not been executed. 32. In this regard, paragraph 225 of the judgment is clear and precise that the beneficiaries of the guarantee of non-repetition are: (a) other members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT who are not among the victims in this case, and (b) other persons who, while not members of this association, are discharged or retired employees of the National Tax Administration Superintendence.” That said, the same measure leaves no doubt that the beneficiaries of this measures must have faced “a similar situation to the victims in this case.” And this means “that they have been the beneficiaries of a judicial ruling or an administrative decision – either 9