-78204(95) On October 26, 1998, the Office of the Ombudsman of Peru issued a report called “Non-compliance with Judgments by the State Administration”, in which it included recommendations to State agencies urging compliance with court orders.150 204(96) On July 16, 2003, Ministerial Resolution No. 238-2003-PCM was issued, creating a commission to study and prepare technical and regulatory proposals with a view to contributing to the compliance with judgments by the State administration. Said commission was composed by representatives of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Economy, the Superintendence of National Assets and the Office of the Ombudsman. It was set up on July 31, 2003 and completed its report on October 24, 2003. Said commission informed that there were over five hundred judgments pending compliance by various agencies of the Executive Branch, without including local governments.151 COURT COSTS AND EXPENSES 204(97) The alleged victims and their representatives conducted various processes and proceedings in their endeavors to obtain the enforcement of the appeal for legal protection orders issued in their favor and disbursed expenses generated by having resorted to the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights. IX VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 25 AND 8 OF THE CONVENTION REGARDING ARTICLE 1(1) (RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL) Argument by the Commission 205. The Commission did not allege violation Article 8 of the Convention. As regards the alleged violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention, in relation to Article 1(1), the Commission stated that: a) the State did not comply with the final judgments rendered by the Peruvian courts ordering: a) the reinstatement of the workers dismissed by the Municipality of Lima following a call for certain periodic assessments and evaluations that were not duly published and which were designed as a means of dismissing staff members, with disregard for public service career conditions; b) the Municipality of Lima to reinstate those workers who were dismissed by for participating in the strike organized by the union, which was declared illegal, or those dismissed as a result of the winding-up of Lima Municipal Services Corporation (ESMLL); c) the Municipality of Lima to pay back to said workers the salaries, allowances, bonuses, and other employee benefits, owed them under the collective bargaining agreements entered into with the union between 1989 and 1995; d) to set aside administrative 150 Cf. Report by the Ombudsman on “Non-compliance of judgments by the State Administration” of October 26, 1998 (file of appendixes to the submission of comments by the common intervener submitted on January 4, 2006, Appendix 5(22), folio 7067). 151 Cf. Amicus curiae Brief submitted by the Ombudsman of Peru on April 28, 2005 (file of preliminary comments, and merits, reparations, and costs, Volume V, folios 1140, 1142 y 1146).