-71- 204(72) On October 20, 2000, the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Provisional Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law) rendered a decision, declaring “Mayoral Resolution No. 822, issued on March 2, 1999 and Tribunal Registral (Registrations Court) Decision No. 018-2000 of January 28, 200[0 (supra para. 204(70) and 204(71)] inapplicable on the grounds that they are contrary to and constitute an attack against the claims asserted in the […] proceeding”, regarding of the compliance with the judgment rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on August 19, 1999 (supra para. 204(69).120 204(73) On July 7, 2000, the Municipality of Lima instituted an action before the Décimo Cuarto Juzgado Civil (Fourteenth Civil Court) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) to annul a fraudulent decision with authority of a final judgment, against the Asociación Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima (Lima Municipal Workers Union Association), the judge of the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Provisional Corporate Court Specializing in Public Law) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima), court members of the Sala Especilaizada en Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) and the Public Attorney in charge of the affairs concerning the Judiciary, asserting that the judgments of January 19 and August 19, 1999 (supra para. 204(69) are contrary to the legal system. The Municipality of Lima claimed in the complaint that said Decisions were defective, to wit: “Fraud as to the alleged Right to Property”, because it upheld SITRAMUN’s right to property even though it was subject to a condition and “Fraud as to Legal Standing”, for the land was awarded on September 22, 1987 and the registration of the fake SITRAMUN as Association was made on July 3, 1998; therefore such Association could have never been the beneficiary of the awarded land.121 204(74) On June 30, 2003, the Décimo Cuarto Juzgado Civil (Fourteenth Civil Court) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) rendered Decision No. 30, “dismissing the complaint filed by the Municipality for lack of merit” (supra para. 204(73), on the grounds that “the facts […] described do not support the fraud allegation; they rather show disagreement with the entity given by the judge to the right claimed by the union, which should have been argued in the same proceeding by filing the relevant remedy on appeal provided for by the law to annul or reverse the judgment if the aggrieved party considered that the judgment has been rendered in disregard of the law or of the proceedings.” For the court to hear the action “it is not only necessary to show the existence of an error but also that such error result from the fraudulent conduct of the judge, or of the parties, or of the former with the latter, which has not been proven here.”122 120 Cf. Order rendered by the Primer Juzgado Corporativo Transitorio Especializado en Derecho Público (First Corporate Provisional Court Specializing in Public Law) on October 20, 2000 (file of appendixes to the submission of closing arguments by the common intervener, appendix 102, folio 6093). 121 Cf. Action to annul a fraudulent decision with the authority of a final judgment (file of preliminary objections and merits, reparations and costs, Volume VIII, folios 2485 to 2503). 122 Cf. Order No. 30 rendered by the Décimo Cuarto Juzgado Civil (Fourteenth Civil Court) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) on June 30, 2003 (file of preliminary objections and merits, reparations and costs, Volume VIII, folio 2507).