8 19. That the State alleged that the CEE complies with the requirements of the Judgment as to the creation of an "independent and impartial body". According to the State, the Ministry of Justice interpreted the text of the Judgment to the effect that the State did not have "the obligation to set up an arbitration tribunal, but that it was a power of the State to establish a body in charge of interpreting and enforcing the Judgment". The State sustained that the CEE was independent in the sense that it only received logistical and secretarial support from the Ministry of Justice, apart from which it had total liberty in the procedure to make its own decisions about the dismissals and legal consequences. As to the impartiality of the body, the State emphasized that the members of the CEE were “five prestigious members of the forum of domestic law, which were persons and professional of recognized moral and ethical solvency”, alleging that each one of them was impartial. It also noted that the five members performed their duties for free. 20. That the common interveners alleged that the CEE lacks the characteristic of independence required by the Judgment, since the State – by means of the formation of the CEE- abandoned the evaluation commission, which was the result of a negotiation process of more than one year and the common understanding of the victims and the State. They alleged that the CEE, “given that it was completely formed by representatives appointed exclusively by the State [,] which was overcome in the process that gave rise to the [Judgment], […] questions the impartiality and independence that the Court required”. Moreover, a group of victims alleged that the CEE does not comply with the Judgment for failing “to overcome the constitutional and conventional deficiencies of the judicial processes conducted before the Fifth Chamber and Constitutional Tribunal, deficiencies that […] are verified with the lack of impartiality and independence of its members”. 21. That, other group of victims, by means of their representatives, argued that according to the domestic regulation on enforcement of supranational judgments, specially Act 27.775, the competent body to enforce the Judgment is the Chamber before which the domestic remedies were exhausted - that is, the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Lima in the instant case- which ordered the enforcement by the court that heard the prior proceeding, which would be the judge in charge of the 28° Civil Trial Court of Lima. Therefore, they deemed that the establishment of any commission by the Legislative branch is not valid. 22. That other victims’ representatives alleged that, in order to be an independent and impartial body and to have the power to make final and binding decisions, the body that the State must set up to comply with operative paragraph four would have to be a body of the Judiciary, that is, a judicial or arbitration court. This would be according to Articles 139.1 and 139.2 of the Political Constitution of Peru, which provides that the judicial branch represents “the unity and exclusivity of the judiciary” and that “there is no judicial process before a commission or delegation”. In addition, they sustained that the CEE, given that it is a body predetermined by law, violates Article 8 of the American Convention. They deemed that, otherwise, the formation of the body is solely an administrative act that may be questioned before a court, “having, as a result, no compulsory and final nature as required by the [Judgment]". They also noted that, during the processing of the case, the State proposed a commitment to set up a multi-sectorial commission that would review the corresponding dismissals and grant benefits, following the guidelines drawn up in the legal norms that established the review of collective dismissals, but that this Tribunal decided to order the formation of an independent and impartial body to review the dismissals; that is, it did not accept a very similar proposal to the one that the State had finally implemented. 23. That the Commission stated that the access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse leads to the need of ensuring some guarantees not only in judicial proceedings but also in administrative acts, according to the own case-law of the Court. Furthermore, the Commission noted that, when it was informed in December 2008 that the CEE had been set