-51- 203. As regards to the statements made by the witness proposed by the common intervener and by the witnesses proposed by the State (supra paras. 64 and 188), the Court admits them inasmuch as they are in accordance with the purpose of the examination established by the President in Order of August 1, 2005 (supra para. 51), and recognizes their evidentiary value, taking into consideration the comments filed by the parties. The Court considers that the statement given by Corina Antonieta Tarazona-Valverde (supra paras. 64 and 188), which is useful in the instant case, cannot be assessed separately for she is an alleged victim with an interest in the outcome of the instant case, but rather that it must be assessed as a whole with the rest of the body of evidence in the case.34 VIII PROVEN FACTS 204. Based on the evidence produced, and taking into consideration the statements made by the parties, as well as the acknowledgment of responsibility made by Peru (supra paras. 169-180), the Court finds the following facts to be proven: A) REGARDING DISMISSALS FOR REDUNDANCY OR STAFF ASSESSMENT 204(1) On December 28, 1992 Decree-Law No. 26093 was promulgated which provided that the Ministers and public officials in charge of Ministries and Decentralized State Agencies “shall implement half-yearly staff assessment programs,” and according to which the staff who would not qualify for their jobs might be dismissed on the grounds of redundancy.35 204(2) On December 29, 1992 the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima)) and the Sindicato de Trabajadores de la Municipalidad de Lima - SITRAMUN-LIMA (Lima Municipality Workers Union), executed “Exception Minutes” or collective labor agreement, wherein the Municipality agreed to “respect the job stability and the administrative career of the permanent worker.”36 204(3) On December 12, 1995 the 1996 Public Sector Budget Act, Law No. 26553,37 was enacted, whose eighth Provisional and Final Provision included local 34 Cf. Case of Blanco-Romero et al, supra note 24, para. 50; Case of García-Asto and Ramírez-Rojas, supra note 16, para. 95; and Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 50. 35 Cf. Decree-Law No. 26093 (case file of appendixes to the application brief, appendix 11, folio 122). Cf. Exception Minutes signed by the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipalidad de Lima (Municipality of Lima) and SITRAMUN-LIMA on December 29, 1992 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 12, folio 124). 36 37 Cf. 1996 Public Sector Budget Act, Law No. 26553 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 13, folio 130).