-31by means of money was a key factor.” It added that “[…] as part of this corruption system, trade union leaders of the Sindicato de Trabajadores Municipales –Sitramun(Lima Municipal Workers Union) were bribed with sums of money amounting to at least […] US$ 24,000.00 to engage in activities” “aimed at discrediting Major Andrade” of the Municipality of Lima. 160. As to the allegation of this “new matter” (supra paras. 158 and 159), both the Commission and the common intervener of the alleged victims’ representatives requested the Court that it be dismissed. The Commission stated, inter alia, that “considering estoppel, the acknowledgment made by the Peruvian State before the Commission should be construed and have effects as it was made” and that “the subsequent limitations or restrictions thereon are not admissible.” Likewise, the common intervener stated that the facts related to the merits of the instant case “were explicitly accepted by [the State] through the acknowledgment of its international responsibility for the commission thereof.” 161. The State submitted various documents and other supporting evidence aimed at showing the alleged corruption practices that took place among the leaders of SITRAMUN, the SIN and the members of the Judiciary, as well as the “illegal nature” of the judgments which allegedly have not been complied with. Without the intention to make an exhaustive count, the Court has noted that such evidence mainly refers to: 1) convictions and criminal proceedings against members of the Judiciary; 2) the four-judge composition of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) which delivered twelve out of the twenty-four judgments in the instant case; 3) reports of the Inter-American Commission on the situation of the Judiciary in Peru during the last decade; 4) the judgment rendered by the Inter-American Court in the Case of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) v. Peru ; 5) the affidavit submitted by the former Chief of the SIN; 6) the statements given by Maria Angélica ArceGuerrero and Matilde Pinchi-Pinchi, former secretaries to Vladimiro Montesinos; 7) the criminal proceedings instituted against an alleged victim and three representatives14 of the instant case before the Primer Juzgado Penal Especial (First Special Criminal Court) of the Corte Superior de Justicia de Lima (High Court of Justice of Lima) as alleged first-degree accomplices of peculation, particularly the prosecutorial pleading issued in November, 2005; 8) the testimony given by the witnesses at the public hearing held at the Court; and 9) the alleged jurisprudential changes of the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) to favor the SITRAMUN workers regarding the dismissals resulting from their assessments. Likewise, the State requested the Court to address the Criminal Court where the criminal proceedings for peculation is pending to request a copy of the statements given by the two former secretaries to Montesinos, or that it authorize the statements given by such two persons to be submitted via an affidavit. 162. As regards the evidence on the alleged corruption rings, the Commission stated that “as a matter of fact it […] verified the serious restrictions introduced to the independence, autonomy and fairness of the Peruvian Judiciary during the ‘90s, and, naturally, it considers such characteristics crucial to the compliance with judicial proceedings with the obligations established by the American Convention.” However, the Commission emphasized that “it has neither been proven before this international Court nor before the domestic system that the judgments rendered in the instant case regarding the former SITRAMUN workers have been a direct 14 Two of these representatives (Alejandro Hinostroza-Rimari and Manuel Condori-Araujo) are also alleged victims in the instant case.