14 55. However, the increase in the salary ratios was not executed. For this reason, in October of 1990, a group of workers filed a request of amparo before the 16th Civil Court of Lima, requesting that the system be applied. On December 3, 1990, said court issued a judgment accepting the petitioner’s request in its entirety and ordering SEDAPAL:33 i) “to grant the personnel employed as Functionaries and Senior Management the recovery in their monthly remuneration of the salary scales that were in effect in SEDAPAL during the month of June [1989] based on the corresponding remuneration at the bottom level or category of the Employment and Remuneration Structure (Unskilled Laborer) in effect during the month of October [1990],” and ii) “to pay the unpaid remunerations derived from the application of the aforementioned salary scales.”34 56. In response to this judicial ruling, SEDAPAL filed a cassation appeal. However, on May 29, 1991, the favorable judgment was upheld by the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima35 and later by the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on February 12, 1992.36 The Supreme Court ruled, “in conformity with the decision of the [Supreme] Prosecution,” that a “violation, through the omission of an administrative act, of express labor rights that have been expressly recognized by the company against which the complaint has been brought” had been proven.37 57. That judgment was not immediately executed, for which reason SEDAPAL and the representatives of the functionaries began an extra-judicial negotiation process to resolve the dispute over the execution of the judgment.38 That process resulted in a legal document determining how the payments would be made.39 The Commission, the representative, and the State agree that as of that moment, the orders of the judicial rulings upholding payment according to the salary scale system had been complied 32 Official Letter No. CND-1546-GECS/GGA-90 of CONADE dated June 12, 1990, en Report No. 678-91 of the Supreme Public Prosecutor for adversarial administrative law, dated November 12, 1991 (case file of annexes to the brief on arguments and evidence, tome VI, annex 12, folio 1858). 33 Judgment of the 16th Civil Court of Lima of December 3, 1990 (case file of annexes to the brief on arguments and evidence, tome VI, annex 9, folios 1845 to 1851). 34 Judgment of the 16th Civil Court of Lima, supra note 33, folio 1850. 35 Judgment of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of May 29, 1991 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 3, folio 36). 36 Judgment of the Supreme Court of February 12, 1992 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 5, folio 40). 37 Report No. 678-91 of the Supreme Public Prosecutor for Adversarial Administrative Law, supra note 32, folio 1859. 38 The purpose of the negotiation was “to put a complete and final end to the dispute [...] over the judicial processing of execution of the judgment on the Writ of Amparo [... requested] before the 16th Civil Court of Lima.” Agreement act of extrajudicial transations of June 23, 1992 (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 6, folio 43). 39 On June 23, 1992, the “Certification of Agreements in the Extrajudicial negotiation” was signed. In that document, SEDAPAL committed to the following payments: i) to pay functionaries and senior management the full amount of the legal interest through the month of February 1992; ii) to pay the functionaries in accordance with the result of an agreed-upon accounting report on the remunerations due though the month of February 1992; iii) to pay those functionaries in accordance with the result of a complimentary accounting report on the legal interest accrued through June 23, 1992, and iv) to proceed with the payment of the remuneration accrued though the month of February 1992 - plus the interest through June 1992 - that had ceased in October 1990 to the functionaries covered in the accounting report, proportional to the dates of their corresponding dismissals., June 23, Cf. Certification of extrajudicial negotiation agreement, supra note 38, folios 43 to 45.