-91aforementioned judgment of September 23, 1998, the Municipality filed three objections, which were dismissed for lack of merit, on the grounds that, inter alia, the Municipality may not argue that the prohibitions laid down in the Budget Act excuse compliance with a final and enforceable court decision (supra para. 204(24)). 231. Based on the foregoing considerations and on the body of evidence in the case, the Court has determined that the State has not effectively complied with the five orders of amparo mentioned above, therefore incurring in an unjustified delay of six to eight years in the compliance of these orders. 232. In accordance with the explanations in paragraph 227 hereinbefore, the victims of the non-compliance with these five orders of amparo are the persons identified as plaintiffs and co-plaintiffs in four of them. As regards the judgment rendered by the Sala de Derecho Público (Public Law Chamber) on June 6, 1997, where there is a reference to the “plaintiffs” without indication of names, the Court will hold their names to be those of the persons that filed the appeal for legal protection. All such people are included in the list of victims attached hereto. * * * 233. This group of judgments regarding dismissals as a result of staff assessments includes also the judgment rendered by the Sala Especializada de Derecho Público (Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on February 6, 1997 (supra para. 204(13)). The action in which this judgment was rendered was instituted by the SITRAMUN (supra para. 204(11)). In this judgment, Mayoral Resolution No. 033-A-96, which ordered the staff assessment program for the employees of the Municipality of Lima (supra para. 204(4) is declared “INAPPLICABLE to the plaintiffs” on the grounds that Appendix 1 of said Resolution, which contained the terms of said assessment program, was not published and the Municipality did not prove that the workers had otherwise acquired knowledge of said terms (supra para. 204(13)). 234. Even though the judgment of February 6, 1997 does not order the reinstatement of the plaintiffs, at the enforcement stage the competent courts ordered the Municipality of Lima to reinstate the workers (supra para. 204(14)). 235. In this regard, the Court believes that the aforementioned judgment establishes a general order that had to be observed with respect to all SITRAMUN workers who were dismissed pursuant to Resolution No. 033-A-96 insofar as Appendix 1 thereof was not published. It is possible to determine who the beneficiaries of this judgment are. 236. As regards the determination of such beneficiaries, in its application, the Commission indicated 355 persons as alleged victims, and provided the Court with a copy of the dismissal orders with respect to 354 of them, which show that they were dismissed pursuant to Resolution No. 033-A-96.166 The Court considers these 354 persons as victims, and their names are included in the list of victims attached hereto. 166 The dismissal Resolution that was not provided to the Court was the one issued in respect of Mr. Dante Córdova-Blanco. His name is included in footnote No. 22 of the application, but is not included in appendix 16 thereof, which contains a list detailing the names of the 354 persons, along with with the number. of their respective dismissal orders. Mr. Dante Córdova-Blanco is not included in the lists of alleged victims provided by the common intervener as appendixes to the submission of requests and