-24carried out between September, 1999 and June, 2000. Additionally, in application of the above principle, the acknowledgement of international responsibility made by Peru prevents if from challenging the petitioners’ legal standing to act; c) the State seems to be challenging the legal standing of the persons who filed the petition before the Commission. As it was stated in the Report on Admissibility of January 13, 1999, the Inter-American Commission “received a petition from the Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima SITRAMUN-LIMA (Lima Municipal Workers Union), the Federación de Trabajadores Municipales del Perú - FETRAMUNP (Municipal Workers Federation of Peru), and the Comité de Despedidos de la Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima - ESMLL (Committee of Dismissed Workers of the Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation).” The entities which filed the petition were authorized under Article 44 of the American Convention to file complaints before the Commission. “Since the entities involved are, in any case, groups of persons, they would anyway have the legal standing to file petitions before the Commission;” the application was filed regarding certain individual persons and not regarding the entity or the entities which may group them or might have grouped them. The alleged victims mentioned in the application “are individual persons who have obtained a judgment pronounced in their favor;” d) e) the State has not challenged the fact that the entities which filed the petition before the Commission are legally recognized in Peru; and f) the alleged victims have granted powers of attorney to be represented by individual persons and not by legal entities. The State has not challenged any of the powers which have been forwarded to the Court by the Commission, “nor has it identified which persons the Asociación” Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales de Lima (Lima Municipal Workers Union Association) would allegedly be representing. Neither has the State challenged the representation exercised by the Commission regarding the alleged victims who have not granted a power of attorney to be represented. 131. Arguments by the common intervener of the alleged victims’ representatives The common intervener requested the Court that the objection be dismissed and argued that: a) in the processing of the case before the Commission and “when the instant proceedings were already submitted to the jurisdiction of [the …] Court”, Peru acknowledged the legal capacity and legal standing of the applicants to act. To support this argument, parts of several official notes sent by the State agents to some of the representatives who were designated as common intervener and to the Inter-American Commission, three records of meetings held by the “Working Commission” created by Supreme Order, and the report addressed by the Chairwoman of such Commission to the Minister of Justice in connection with the instant case are referred to and transcribed; and