-96the opinion of the Court is that the domestic courts having jurisdiction to enforce the judgments on dismissals must adopt a final decision on the matter of who are the workers with respect to whom the partial or total compliance with the judgments is still pending. D) Judgments on the enforcement of collective bargaining agreements. D(1) Reduction of compensation 260. As regards the judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on December 10, 1997 (supra para. 204(55)), the Court finds that, according to its terms, the beneficiaries of the amparo would be the SITRAMUN members. Pursuant to said judgment, the Municipality of Lima should “pay them the difference resulting from the reduction of their wages, corresponding to the period of actual and effective work, during the application of [Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 of January 17, 1996], whereby a provisional compensation schedule had been applied to them since January 1996. 261. Regarding compliance, both the common intervener and the Inter-American Commission admitted, both at the public hearing held before the Court and by means of their written closing statements, that partial compliance with said judgment had occurred and they argued that a partial lack of compliance still exists with respect to the dismissed workers who that have not been reinstated to their jobs with Municipality, as well as to those that are not pensioners. The common intervener filed a detailed roster of the amounts he deems are still owed the beneficiaries of the order of amparo, a matter touched upon by witness Wilfredo Castillo-Sabalaga in his affidavit (supra para. 187). However, the Court notes that, apparently, some workers who had not been reinstated to their jobs to whom the Municipality paid the amounts deducted from their wages in 1996, as admitted by witness Juan de Dios Berrospi (supra para.187) –an alleged victim. 262. On the other hand, the State has argued that the Municipality of Lima has paid back to “its workers the amount of the reduction, in several installments and commensurately with its budgetary restrictions.” Furthermore, several resolutions taken by the Municipality between July 1999 and November 2002 were submitted, whereby the Staff and Treasury Offices were authorized to pay the abovementioned adjustments (supra para. 204(59)). 263. Based on the evidence produced and the statements by the parties, the Court finds that the reimbursement, by the State, of the amounts owed those members of the SITRAMUN who were working at the Municipality on the date of the reimbursement payments, as well as to those who were pensioners on even date therewith, has been proved. However, such reimbursement has not been made to all the other members of the SITRAMUN to whom the abovementioned provisional compensation schedule was applied and who, for various reasons, were not working at the Municipality on the date such reimbursement payments were made. Regarding this last matter, it is worth recalling that a group of workers was dismissed during 1996 and obtained orders of amparo, whereby the courts directed their reinstatement to working positions, but said court orders have not been complied with. Before dismissal, said persons had also been receiving their wages during several months pursuant to the provisional compensation schedule applied under Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 of January 17, 1996, and therefore, under the provisions of the court