-19b) a decision by the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) is pending regarding the motion of appeal filed on September 3, 2003 by “ESMLL corporation (in process of winding up)”, against the ruling issued by the 64º Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil de Lima (64th Specialized Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil (Court Specializing in Civil Matters) of Lima), wherein it ordered the reinstatement of 61 applicants to their jobs; and c) “the list of persons stated in the application does not include any former ESMLL worker.” 117. Arguments by the Commission The Inter-American Commission requested the Court that the objection be “dismissed” as “it is not based on factual and legal grounds” and pointed out that: a) the Arguments by the State are time-barred and groundless. The objection should be dismissed on the grounds that it was not filed in due time before the Commission and that it ignores the express decision adopted by the Commission on the matter of admissibility in Report No. 85/01 adopted on October 10, 2001. The State expressed its will to abide by the decision to be adopted by the Commission. In such report, the Commission examined carefully the compliance with the conventional admissibility requirements and, after considering the parties’ views and the evidence produced and having in mind that the petition addressed the non-compliance with judicial decisions, it considered that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention was met; b) at its present evolutionary stage, the Inter-American system provides for important justifications for the Court not to examine the matters on admissibility that have been examined by the Commission, thus avoiding the duplication of a proceeeding which was conducted with all procedural guarantees; c) such objection is also unjustified pursuant to the estoppel principle, since during the proceeding before the Commission the State acknowledged its international responsibility for the factual substance of the case, which prevents Peru from alleging before the Court the failure to exhaust all previous domestic remedies; d) “all judgments which compliance is requested in the instant case are final and unappealable and have had the effects of res judicata for over six years, notwithstanding the fact that some of them are still at the enforcement phase.” In pointing out that a motion of appeal is still pending before the domestic jurisdiction at the enforcement phase regarding the former ESMLL workers, “the State acknowledges that after […] more than five years have passed since the highest judicial authority in the country acknowledged the rights of the former ESMLL workers and ordered the Municipality of Lima to reinstate those workers who had not collected their social benefits to their jobs, […] such workers have not been reinstated, i.e., it has not complied with the judgment in point;”