597 victims and not 598. Also, regarding the request for interpretation concerning the sixth operative paragraph, the Commission noted with concern the information presented by the representatives on the import given to the said expert report and stressed that the nature of the expert report would prejudice the remedial effect of the measure of restitution. This was because: (a) it did not cover all the victims whose rights were violated, as attested by the Court, and (b) the sums to be received were derisory compared to the measures ordered by the Court in judgments of a similar nature. Consequently, the Commission agreed with the representatives’ request to determine the number of victims identified in the judgment who would receive a payment, as well as the amounts to be paid. A.2 Considerations of the Court 17. First, regarding the request for interpretation concerning the determination of the number of victims, the Court reiterates what it had established in paragraphs 120, 121 and 122 of the judgment: 120. This matter was addressed by the ruling of the Sixth Civil Chamber of June 3, 2005, in which it recognized the persons who had been members of ANCEJUB-SUNAT when the application for amparo was filed as beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993, and identified 604 persons whose names were provided on a list prepared on the basis of the register of ANCEJUB-SUNAT members and a list of deductions relating to former SUNAT employees. In its considerations, the Chamber indicated that “[i]n response to the petition filed by [ANCEJUB-SUNAT], on behalf of its members, only those who were members when the proceedings were filed – that is December [30, 1991,] when the petition was admitted for processing – should be considered plaintiffs […] because those who joined the association after that date were not represented by the association in the proceedings and, therefore, are not plaintiffs.” 121. The Court agrees with this ruling in the sense that if ANCEJUB-SUNAT was acting on behalf of its members, it is logical that only those who were members when the application for amparo was filed in 1991 can be considered beneficiaries of the decision that declared it admissible. The Court observes that, in addition to the 604 individuals identified in the ruling of June 3, 2005, when approving the expert report of October 18, 2011, and ordering the payment of the reimbursements established therein, the Constitutional Court, in the judgment of April 23, 2019, considered as beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993, the persons listed in the annexes to the said expert report. Since the Court has no record of the revocation of the said rulings, it considers that the determination of the persons to whom the provisions of the judgment of October 25, 1993, applied was decided by the rulings of June 3, 2005, and April 23, 2019. 122. In this regard, the Court recalls that, in this case, the main purpose of the litigation is to determine whether the State is internationally responsible for failing to execute the judgment of the Supreme Court of October 25, 1993, and the effects that this judgment could have on other rights of the presumed victims. Consequently, given that only the 598 individuals identified either in the ruling of June 3, 2005, or in the expert report adopted by the judgment of April 23, 2019, have been recognized as beneficiaries of the judgment of October 25, 1993, the Court finds that these are the only persons who may be considered presumed victims of the violations alleged in this case, provided they are included in the “single annex” to the Commission’s Merits Report. For this reason, Mr. Ipanaqué cannot be considered a presumed victim in this case, even though the Commission considered him as such in its Merits Report. 18. Regarding these paragraphs, the Court clarifies that the difference between the number of beneficiaries of the judgment of June 3, 2005 (604 personas) and the number of persons included as victims in Annex 2 of the judgment (598 persons) is due to the fact that Víctor José Gutiérrez Infantas, María Rosario Medina Serrano de Rojas, Jorge Nieto Garrido, Néstor Pagaza Aguilar, Herbert Belisario Monzón Ugas and Sixto Melena Ballesteros were not included 5