payments in the abovementioned period91. They added that the expert would be granted every facility regarding the payroll sheets kept at SUNAT92. 74. On August 14, 2012, the MEF replied to the request for information regarding active and discharged workers kept by the Ministry for the court-appointed expert report, stating the following: From the regulations governing Court-appointed Experts’ performance it is understood that, given their specialization, the experts are the ones that should carry out a number of tasks that enable them to arrive to a given conclusion that assists the Judge to resolve the controversy subject to his or her decision; and said responsibility should not be transferred to the Public Administration servants or officials, as intended by the document in question, which details a number of requirements, entailing not only documentation but also time and effort on the part of this Office’s personnel, which would result in a delay in our daily work and urgent issued that require attention 93. 75. On September 5, 2012, SUNAT submitted before the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima an executive summary about the differences detected in the Expert Report94. On September 21, 2012, the Court ordered the MEF to deliver the requested documentation to the ANCEJUB-SUNAT experts95. The ANCEJUB-SUNAT experts had access to the information between November 7, 2012 and December 19, 201296. 76. On September 12, 2013, ANCEJUB-SUNAT presented its observations to the Expert Report before the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima, and submitted the report itself on August 22, 201397. 77. On May 18, 2014, the Expert Report Technical Team cleared the observations to the Expert Report and concluded that “(…) the expert review has followed the Supreme Court’s guidelines, the Sixth Civil Chamber of the Court of Lima ruling and the stipulations in the judgment issued by the Constitutional Court, which rules over the right way to construe the Supreme Court’s judgment and settles the interpretation controversy put forth”98. 78. On August 5, 2014, the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima informed the parties about the report drafted by the Expert Report Technical Team99. In view of the observations made by ANCEJUB-SUNAT to said report in the sense that the remuneration items are inadequately determined, on 91 Official Notice N°092-2012-SUNAT-4F0000 submitted by SUNAT on April 17, 2012 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on October 18, 2012). 92 Official Notice N°092-2012-SUNAT-4F0000 submitted by SUNAT on April 17, 2012 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on October 18, 2012). 93 Official Notice N°092-2012-SUNAT-4F0000 submitted by SUNAT on April 17, 2012 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners October 18, 2012). 94 Writ drafted by SUNAT and presented before the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on September 5, 2012 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 95 Resolution issued by the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on September 21, 2012 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 96 Writ addressed to ANCEJUB-SUNAT dated February 4, 2013 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on March 4, 2013). 97 Writ drafted by ANCEJUB-SUNAT and presented before the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on September 12, 2013 (Attached to the communication issued by the petitioners on May 31, 2016). 98 Expert Report N°092-2014-JAVM-PJ issued by the Expert Report Technical Team on May 18, 2014 (Attached to the communication issued by the State on August 18, 2014). 99 Resolution issued by the 22nd Court Specializing in Civil Law of Lima on August 5, 2014 (Attached to the communication issued by the State on August 18, 2014). 15