-61and it further stated that the right to work had been violated. In addition, in judgments rendered on November 18, 1998 and on April 9, 1999 the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) stated that “the plaintiff is entitled to exercise the right to defend himself throughout the proceeding and not merely at one of the stages thereof.”77 204(38) On November 9 and 15, 1999 the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law) issued two Orders, whereby it requested that the Municipality of Lima comply with the judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on November 18, 1998 and on April 9, 1999 (supra paras. 204(37)). 78 C) WITH RESPECT TO THE DISMISSALS OR REDUNDANCY FOR DECLARING AN ILLEGAL STRIKE DECLARATIONS OF 204(39) The Lima Municipal Workers Union, SITRAMUN-Lima, called a general work stoppage for March 13, 1996, which was declared illegal by means of Mayoral Resolution No. 239 of March 8, 1996, wherein administrative sanctions were established for workers participating in the strike. The union postponed the strike to March 15, 1996. On March 14, 1996 the Municipality issued Mayoral Resolution No. 305 extending the scope and operation of Resolution No. 239 to include the postponed strike. The union postponed the strike again until April 1, 1996. By means of Mayoral Resolution No. 575 of April 1, 1996 the new postponement of the strike was brought within the scope and operation of Resolution No. 239, confirming the declaration of illegality. Resolution No.575 likewise resolved: “to declare the strike called by the organization known as “Sitramun-Lima” and Mr. Hinostroza Alejandro Rimari, which has been taking place since March 29, 1996, illegal [,… and] to find civil servants joining said illegal work stoppage guilty of gross disciplinary misconduct and therefore liable to the appropriate disciplinary sanction […].”79 204(40) The strike that had been called by the SITRAMUN began on April 1, 1996.80 204(41) In April and May 1996, the Municipality of Lima issued several Resolutions, by means of which administrative disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the workers who joined in the strike.81 Subsequently, the Municipality issued Mayoral Resolutions, dismissing the workers.82. 77 Cf. Judgments rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on November 18 and December 21, 1998 and April 9, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 39, 40 and 41, folios 1912, 1944 and 1956). 78 Cf. Resolutions No. 6 and 11 issued by the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law) on November 9 and 15, 1999 (case file with appendixes to the application brief, appendixes 39 and 40, folios 1917 and 1948). 79 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolution No. 575 of April 1, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, Appendix 24, folio 1373). 80 Cf. Judgment rendered by the Sixth Civil Court of Lima on December 13, 1996, and judgment rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on November 16, 1998 (file of appendixes to the application, Appendix 24, folios 1392 and 1400). 81 Cf. Lima Mayoral Resolutions No. 639 of April 12, 1996, No. 671 of April 24, 1996, No. 709 of May 2, 1996 and No. 1247 of May 24, 1996 (file of appendixes to the application, Appendix 24, folios 1375 through 1390).