-94* * * 250. Also connected with the dismissals for participating in illegal strikes, there are three judgments delivered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law)167 and five judgments pronounced by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court)168, which declared the Mayoral Resolutions whereby the plaintiffs had been dismissed (supra para. 204(43) to 204(46)) not applicable. The judgments delivered by said Chamber ordered the reinstatement of seven plaintiffs to their jobs with the same rights and benefits they had had up to the date they were discharged. Only the judgment of March 31, 1999, pronounced by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) ordered the back payment of lost wages and other benefits as of the date of the dismissal resolution (supra para. 204(44)). The judgments of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) pronounced on April 13, 1998, May 13, 1998, October 16, 1998 and August 20, 1999 ordered the reinstatement of the 33 plaintiffs “to the jobs they had, or to other similar positions, without back pay for lost wages” (supra para. 204(45)). Likewise, the judgment by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) of November 11, 1998, ordered the reinstatement of eleven plaintiffs “to the positions they held or to other similar ones, without the back pay for lost wages” and affirmed the decision of the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) whereby the reinstatement of the other three plaintiffs was also ordered (supra para. 204(46)). 251. This Court notes that, as regards compliance with seven of the appeals for legal protection [protection of constitutional guarantees and rights]” referred to in the preceding paragraph, the court seized with the judgment enforcement proceedings requested the Municipality to comply with said judgments (supra para. 204(47)). The Municipality filed objections against compliance with two of said judgments, based on prohibitions established in the Budget Law; said objections were declared groundless (supra para. 204(48) to 204(51)). Consequently, the argument of the State regarding the closing of the proceedings related to two of said judgments on the grounds of an alleged non-suit must be dismissed. Said judgments declared a right finally and conclusively, and compliance therewith should have been immediate, within the statutory Peruvian time limits, and without the beneficiary having to move indefinitely for enforcement, since the court seized with the judgment enforcement proceedings itself has ordered the Municipality to comply with said judgments. 252. On the basis of the foregoing considerations and of the evidence submitted, the Court finds that the State has not complied with the judgments pronounced by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law)) on July 14, 1998, November 16, 1998, March 31, 1999, and December 22, 1999, and by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on April 3, 1998, May 13, 1998, October 16, 1998, November 11, 1998 and August 20, 1999, thereby incurring in an unwarranted delay of over six years in the enforcement of said final orders of amparo. 167 Judgments of July 14, 1998 and December 22 and March 31, 1999. 168 Judgments of April 3, May 13, October 16 and November 11, 1998 and August 20, 1999.