-98269. The Court deems that the fact that a judgment be in the enforcement stage of proceedings does not exclude the possibility of a violation of the right to an effective remedy. The Court admits that certain determinations must be made during the judgment enforcement proceedings in order to comply with the order of the Chamber and to adopt several decisions, but this does not warrant a delay of more than seven years in the compliance with the final judgment, and therefore this Court concludes that an unwarranted delay in complying with the aforementioned order of amparo rendered on November 18, 1998 exists. 270. This Court has not sufficient or adequate evidence to indicate who would be the SITRAMUN members that are beneficiaries of the abovementioned judgment of November 18, 1998, something which shall be determined by the domestic judicial court seized with the judgment enforcement proceedings thereof. E and F) Judgments related to the Union headquarters and to the plot of land in La Molina District 271. The Court has no jurisdiction over the alleged non-compliance with the judgments delivered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law)) on March 11 and August 19, 1999 whereby the Municipality of Lima was ordered to adopt the measures necessary to donate to SITRAMUN the premises for its headquarters (supra para. 204(80)), and whereby Resolution No. 267 that declared the conveyance to said Union of the plot of land located at La Molina District had lapsed (supra para. 204(69)), was held to be inapplicable, since the beneficiary of said conveyance is a legal entity and the identity of the victims of the alleged violations cannot be determined. G) Judgment on the dissolution of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) 272. The judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on July 8, 1998, which declares de “inapplicability of the Agreement-in-Council that decided to dissolve and wind up the ESMLL and ordered the reinstatement “of the plaintiffs who have not received the social security benefits” (supra para. 204(86)), is in the enforcement stage, and the courts have adopted several decisions on the determination of the workers that must be reinstated. Based on the evidence submitted, and in connection with the last judicial actions taken during the months of June and August 2005 in an endeavor to reinstate 35 workers to their jobs, the Municipality of Lima has stated the “legal impossibility proceed with the reinstatement of the workers” (supra para. 204(91)). Moreover, the pronouncement on an appeal entered against the decision that dismissed the request for the reinstatement of 217 workers is still pending (supra para. 204(89)). 273. Before this Court, the State expressed that it acknowledges the validity of such judgment, but it also stated that as the case is at the enforcement stage, the Court should not hear this case. In this respect, the Court reaffirms that the fact that a judgment be in the enforcement stage of proceedings does not exclude the possibility of a violation of the right to an effective remedy (supra para. 269).