-33- d) e) f) g) June 30, 2003, by the Décimocuarto Juzgado Civil (Fourteenth Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil (Court Specializing in Civil Matters)) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) and on June 9, 2005, the Sexta Sala Civil (Fifth Civil Chamber) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) upheld the judgment on appeal (infra paras. 204(72), 204(73) and 204(74); as to the statements given by María Angélica Arce-Guerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi, former secretaries of former advisor to the Servicio de Inteligencia Nacional (National Intelligence Service), the Court did not consider it advisable to grant the petition filed by the State (supra para. 45), taking into consideration that both those persons have given testimony in a criminal proceedings which have not yet ended and wherein other witnesses have allegedly given testimony and further evidence has allegedly been admitted, all of which should not be assessed by the Court but rather by the domestic criminal court; in the documents submitted regarding the criminal proceedings instituted for peculation against an alleged victim and three representatives, including the criminal charge, no reference is made to corrupt practices to obtain the judgments whereby the petitions for guarantees were admitted and which, according to the claims made before the Court, have not been complied with; it has been proven that regarding the alleged jurisprudential changes of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) to favor the SITRAMUN workers, regarding the dismissals resulting from their assessment or redundancy, the factual and legal grounds of the judgments are, in the case of the Municipality of Lima, different from those in other cases presented by the State; and it is necessary to point out that at the public hearing, upon a question made by the Court and in reference to the alleged participation of SITRAMUN leaders in the “corruption network”, the State asserted that “[i]f it had tangible evidence, it would render it to the Court […] immediately and the instant case would be adjudicated. As it does not h[a]v[e] such evidence, it [h]a[s] to appeal to common sense. [… A]s it is obvious, it c[annot] prove its case with tangible evidence which may exist, but which it h[as] not found.” 165. As to the State’s claim as regards the allegation of a “new matter”, in its final written and oral arguments Peru stated that it does not seek that the Court annul, review, modify or set aside the judgments rendered by Peruvian courts, but rather that “those judgments be examined from the noble perspective of justice and not in terms of mere formality” and that the Court assess if such judgments which are of an “illegal nature” should be complied with pursuant to Article 25 of the Convention. 166. This Court considers that the arguments and supporting evidence submitted by the State regarding the allegation of a “new matter” are aimed at invalidating the legitimacy of the judgments which in the instant case have been claimed not to be complied with and the authority of final judgment thereof, despite its assertion that it does not seek that the Court annul, review, modify or set aside the judgments rendered by Peruvian courts. 167. The Court considers that a judgment which has enforceable authority should necessarily be complied with since it entails a final decision, thus giving rise to