that “the payment of [pension] contributions by the State shall in no case be for a period longer than 12 years.”52 76. Under that law, between 2002 and 2004, three lists of employees who should be included in the National Registry were published: First list Second list Third list Total Ministerial Resolution No. 347-2002-TR Ministerial Resolution No. 059-2003-TR Supreme Resolution No. 034-2004-TR 22/12/2002 7,079 former employees 27/12/2003 10,920 employees 10,124 employees 28,123 employees 02/10/2004 former former former 77. Later, the State issued a new list of irregularly dismissed employees who “were not able to be included in the initial lists.” As of August 2017, the Ministry of Work and Promotion of Employment published five lists of irregularly dismissed employees:53 Fourth list Fifth list Total Supreme Resolution No. 028-2009-TR Supreme Resolution No. 142-2017-TR 05/08/2009 7,676 former employees 17/08/2017 8,855 former employees 16,531 employees former 78. In addition, on July 6, 2016, Law 30484 was enacted, which reactivated the Executive Committee of Law 27803. Law 30484 provides for the incorporation of the beneficiaries who had opted for reincorporation or reassignment but had yet to enjoy that benefit. This norm also allowed the beneficiaries to change their option to financial compensation or early retirement.54 B. The dismissed congressional employees involved in this case 79. The alleged victims are part of a group of congressional employees dismissed under Resolutions 1303-“A”-92-CACL and 1303-“B”-92-CACL. 80. The 20 alleged victims in Petition 725-03 filed a writ of amparo in which they requested that Resolution 1303-“B”-92-CACL, which ordered their dismissal, be declared null and void and that they be reinstated to their jobs. The Second Specialized Court of Public Law, on September 10, 2001, held their claim inadmissible because a writ of amparo was not an appropriate remedy.55 That decision stated: FIRST: That the writ of amparo is a remedy with a very rapid procedure, without an evidentiary stage, that consists only of the juridical reasoning and logic of the operator of justice, who can only reestablish the right that has been violated; provided that it is through specific 52 Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 78. Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 77 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 130. 53 54 Between 2001 and 2021, a total of six laws and a decree were adopted on this matter: Law 27487 of June 23, 2001; Law 27586 of December 12, 2001; Law 27803 of July 29, 2002; Law 29059 of July 6, 2007; Law 30484 of July 6, 2016; Law 31218 of June 10, 2021 and Supreme Decree 019-2021-TR of September 30, 2021. 55 Decision of the Second Specialized Court of Public Law of September 10, 2001. File 2972-01. Writ of Amparo (evidence file, fs 2439 to 2447). 22