65. On October 6, 2008, the Expert Report Technical Team of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima informed its Coordinator that in the “file there is a previous Expert Report (…) drafted by a REPEJappointed expert, which points at logistic and operational difficulties and [the Report] concludes (…) it should be turned to an instance that has the proper time and logistic resources to complete the requested expert report”77. It was also mentioned that “the expert report (…) was accepted by the expert responsible for its completion on December 4, 2002, and that the final report was submitted on November 9, 2009”, and therefore it requested that the court files be sent to REPEJ expert to complete the expert report78. 66. On May 11, 2009 the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima received the report from the Legal Technical Team that was attached to the file and requested the file be sent to a REPEJ expert79. 67. On January 14, 2010, the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima informed the ANCEJUB-SUNAT about two expert reports submitted by SUNAT and granted 60 days to submit observations80. The Court also stated that “in case there are observations, they should be accompanied by exparte supporting documentation attached --namely individual settlements for each of the workers, duly detailed and explained, indicating item, amount and supporting rule”81. The Court also ordered SUNAT to facilitate “verification of documentation, systems and IT tools, and any other relevant element at their offices.”82 68. On February 12, 2010, ANCEJUB-SUNAT submitted a writ to SUNAT stating the following: (…) after the ex-parte expert review and report submitted by SUNAT under the terms of the arbitrary resolution issued by the Sixth Civil Chamber of Lima, which concludes that there is no adjustment to apply or increases to reimburse, and ratifies the violation of our members’ rights and the failure to comply with the final supreme order, our party (…)abstains from appearing in SUNAT’s offices to receive the documentation and other elements that served as the basis for said report83. 69. On March 22, 2010, ANCEJUB-SUNAT presented a plea to nullify the resolution dated January 14, 2010 since “the legal action does not comply with the indispensable requirements to fulfill its purpose.”84 77 Report issued by the Expert Report Technical Team of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima N°001-2008-ETP-CSJLI dated October 6, 2008 (Attached to the communication issued by the State on September 20, 2010). 78 Report issued by the Expert Report Technical Team of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima N° 001-2008-ETP-CSJLI dated October 6, 2008 (Attached to the communication issued by the State on September 20, 2010). 79 Resolution issued by the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of the Superior Court of Lima on May 11, 2009 (Attached to the State’s writ dated September 29, 2010); Official Notice No. S/N-2009-ETP-CBP-PJ issued by the Expert Report Technical Team de la Superior Court of Justice of Lima on February 3, 2009 (Attached to the State’s writ dated September 29, 2010); and, Report N°1-2008ETP-CSJLI issued by the Expert Report Technical Team of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima addressed to the Expert Report Technical Team Coordinator CSJLI dated October 6, 2008 (Attached to the State’s writ dated September 29, 2010). 80 Resolution issued by the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on January 14, 2010 (Attached to the writ issued by the State on March 12, 2010). 81 Resolution issued by the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on January 14, 2010 (Attached to the writ issued by the State on March 12, 2010). 82 Resolution issued by the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on January 14, 2010 (Attached to the writ issued by the State on March 12, 2010). 83 Writ drafted by ANCEJUB-SUNAT addressed to SUNAT dated February 12, 2010 (Attached to the writ issued by the State on March 12, 2010). 84 Writ drafted by SUNAT addressed to the 23rd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima dated July 2, 2010 (Attached to the State’s writ dated July 26, 2010). 13