-97order of December 10, 1997, they should be paid the amounts corresponding to the reductions made on their wages for the months effectively worked during year 1996, before their dismissal. Likewise, there could be some workers that, due to dismissal or other reasons, left their jobs at the Municipality but did not obtain a court order judgment directing their reinstatement, and who had also been subjected to the provisional compensation schedule pursuant to Mayoral Resolution No. 044-A-96 of January 17, 1996. 264. As stated in the foregoing considerations, the State has partially complied with the order of amparo issued by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on December 10, 1997 and compliance therewith is pending in relation with some of the beneficiaries, thereby incurring with them in an unwarranted delay of over eight years regarding compliance with said final order of amparo. 265. The Court has not sufficient nor adequate evidence to determine who are the SITRAMUN members regarding to whom compliance with the abovementioned court order of December 10, 1997 is still pending. This should be determined by the domestic judicial court seized with the enforcement of the judgment. D.2) Compensation Benefits 266. In the judgment rendered on November 18, 1998, the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada de Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law)) (supra paras. 204(60) and 204(61)) decided that the Municipality of Lima had to comply with the collective bargaining agreements entered into with the SITRAMUN between the years 1989 and 1995 and which have a direct impact on compensations, bonuses, allowances, and other benefits of workers; to pay the workers who were members of said union, the amounts owed them between 1992 and 1995 for said compensations and benefits; and to pay them the monthly wages not paid between September and December 1995. In its closing written arguments, Peru stated that said judgment “is in the process of being enforced” before the 1º Juzgado Especializado en lo Civil de Lima (First Court Specializing in Civil Matters of Lima), that “several orders [would have been] issued in connection with the enforcement of the judgment” and it also submitted some documentation related to one of the items directed in such judgment, consisting in the order to pay workers the lost monthly wages corresponding to the period extending from September to December 1995. In the same direction, two of the sworn statements submitted to this Court included a statement made by the alleged victims according to which, in 2003, the Municipality started paying them part of the outstanding debt corresponding to the months of October, November and December 1995, which was fully paid to one of them. (supra paras. 187 and 204(62)). 267. Likewise, the State expressed that said judgment is at the enforcement stage of proceedings and, therefore, “no non-compliance has occurred.” 268. In this respect, the Court has verified that effectively, on November 17, 2004, the court seized with the judgment enforcement proceedings issued an order relative to the determination of the members of the SITRAMUN that are beneficiaries of said judgment (supra para.204(63)). Besides, the Court notes that the State itself has admitted that in the judgment enforcement proceedings an “excessive delay” has occurred due to the observance of “legal procedures”.