119. Regarding the second group of victims (see Annex 3 hereto), the Commission notes that they received exclusively one of the following benefits offered in Decree 27803: (i) Reinstatement or redeployment; (ii) early retirement; (iii) financial compensation; and (iv) vocational training and retraining. With respect to acceptance of only one of these benefits, and no other, the petitioners argue that this did not constitute adequate reparation as it did not recognize the time that they were illegally and arbitrarily separated from their positions of employment for the purposes of compensation, retirement and other fringe and social security benefits. 120. The Commission considers that, based on the information available in the record, the State has provided only partial redress to this group of victims. Thus, for example, as the State itself has acknowledged, some of the victims in this group received no amount in compensatory damages but simply began a new employment contract. Other victims in this group received some form of financial compensation but were not reinstated and the Commission does not have detailed information by which to determine at this time if that compensation satisfied the minimum components that should be included in reparations of this nature. 121. Therefore, the appropriate recommendation with respect to the second group of victims is the creation of a fast-track mechanism that provides, based on a case-by-case assessment, reparations in addition to those already received by each victim under Decree 27803. 122. Regarding the third group of victims (see Annex 4 hereto), the Commission finds that since the irregularity of their respective dismissals has already been formally recognized, the appropriate recommendation is the creation of a fast-track mechanism to reach a direct determination of suitable reparations, including minimum components of redress for arbitrary dismissal, as mentioned in paragraph 118 of this report on merits. It should be clarified that in the opinion of the Commission, under no circumstances could this group of victims have been compelled to choose only one of the benefits that offered, as noted, only partial redress, particularly when the information available indicates that the very standards that governed those benefits excluded anyone who was suing the state and did not desist from doing so. The IACHR highlights that the recommendations on this issue are not based on the State’s domestic system but on the principle that a breach of an international obligation generates the duty to establish an adequate reparation. 123. Based on the foregoing conclusions, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STATE OF PERU: 1. With respect to the individuals who are not on any of the lists, whose dismissals, therefore, have not been recognized as irregular at the domestic level, the Peruvian State should create a fast-track mechanism to perform a case-by-case assessment of their dismissals, determine if they were arbitrary or not, and arrange appropriate reparations, including minimum elements of redress for arbitrary dismissal. 2. With respect to the individuals who are on one of the lists or who have been afforded some form of State recognition of the irregularity of their dismissal and opted for one of the benefits under Decree 27803, the Peruvian state should create a fast-track mechanism that provides, based on a case-by-case assessment, reparations in addition to those already received by each victim under Decree 27803. 3. With respect to the individuals who are on one of the lists or who have been afforded some form of State recognition of the irregularity of their dismissal, but did not opt for any of the benefits under Decree 27803, the State should create a fast-track mechanism to reach a direct determination of suitable reparations, including minimum components of redress for arbitrary dismissal. 24