-56204(19) On January 28, 2000 the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado de Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law) issued an Order, whereby it requested the Municipalidad de Lima (Municipality of Lima) to comply with the enforceable judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on August 20, 1999 (supra para. 204(17)).59 204(20) On November 4, 1996 the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) issued Mayoral Resolution No. 3364, wherein it set forth a new staff assessment program for such Municipality, to be carried out during the second semester of 1996, which was scheduled for November 11-15, 1996 for the assessment of employees and for November 18, 1996 for the assessment of workers, and adopted the Bases for such assessment program contained in Attachment 1 to the foregoing Resolution. Such Resolution and Attachment 1 thereto were published in ““El Peruano”” official gazette on November 9, 1996.60 204(21) Within the framework of the assessment programs carried out in the second semester of 1996, on December 5, 1996 the Municipality of Lima issued Mayoral Resolution No. 3776, whereby it dismissed 318 workers on the grounds of redundancy because they “had not qualified in the above assessment process” “pursuant to the provisions contained in the foregoing Assessment Program Bases of the Municipalidad Metropolitana de Lima (Metropolitan Municipality of Lima).”61 204(22) Sixty-eight out of all the workers who had been dismissed filed appeals for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] requesting, inter alia, that Mayoral Resolution No. 3776 (supra para. 204(21)), as well as all the administrative acts derived therefrom, be found non-applicable. Finally, said appeals for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights] were found to be admissible by two judgments delivered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on September 23, 1998 and on June 23, 1999.62 The judgments rendered by the above Chamber declared “Mayoral Resolution No. 3776 not applicable to the [174] plaintiffs [and] joint plaintiffs” and ordered that the “respondent reinstate all of them to their jobs, under the same conditions and with the same rights and benefits they were entitled to until the time they were dismissed, reserving the right of the plaintiffs and of the joint plaintiffs to require via the pertinent proceedings the back payment of lost wages and other benefits from the date they were dismissed to the date they were effectively reinstated to their jobs.” The Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) based its decision to find the appeals 59 Cf. Order issued by the First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law on January 28, 2000 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 20, folio 1277). 60 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolution No. 3364 of November 4, 1996 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 22, folio 1329). 61 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolution No. 3776 of December 5, 1996 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendix 22, folio 1333). 62 Cf. Judgments rendered by the Provisional Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on September 23, 1998 and on June 23, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 22 and 23, folios 1338 and 1365).