-34certainty as to the right or dispute under discussion in the particular case, its binding force being one of the effects thereof. Eventually, the authority of a decision as a final judgment may be challenged when it infringes individual rights which are protected by the Convention and it has been proven that there are grounds for challenging such authority of final judgment15, something which has not happened in the instant case. 168. Based on the foregoing considerations, the Court does not admit the argument of Peru regarding the alleged “new matter”, of which it claimed not to have cognizance when it acknowledged its responsibility in the processing of the case before the Commission and, therefore, the Court considers that no supporting evidence has been given to deprive the judgments, claimed to have been nonfulfilled, of their legal force. C) Legal effects of acknowledging responsibility before the Comission 169. After dismissing Peru’s argument concerning the alleged “new matter”, the Court will now address the acknowledgment of international responsibility made by the State in the processing of the case before the Commission (supra para. 152 and 154), according to which “it assum[ed] its international responsibility for violating the human rights of the SITRAMUN workers provided for in Articles 25(2)(c) of the American Convention […].” 170. On several occasions in the proceeding before the Court, the State admitted to making such acknowledgment before the Commission. For instance, in the public hearing before the Court, Peru stated that “a matter of fact completely unknown two years ago” had arisen, “which accounted for the Peruvian State’s acknowledging the non-compliances and violations, whereas now […] it prays the Court to take this new matter into consideration […].” 171. This Court observes that in the brief wherein it answered the complaint Peru contended that the domestic judgments non-compliance with which is alleged in the instant case would be contrary to law. Later, in the public hearing held before the Tribunal, Peru stated that “it recognizes that the procedure in the case of ESMLL has been regular, although the judgment has been adverse to the State,” for which reason it “recognizes its validity.” In addition, the State claimed that “in spite of its dissenting legal opinion” concerning the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) court order of December 10, 1997 (infra, para. 204(54)), “the Municipality of Lima complied with such judgment” as regards payment to the workers of the amount that had been witheld when the reduction in their salaries was effected. In addition, in such brief it also stated that “the only cases in which it admits having infringed upon employers’ rights are those determined by the ad hoc Commissions” (supra par. 204(28) to 204(33). 15 Cf. Case of Gutiérrez-Soler. Judgment of September 12, 2005. Series C No. 132, para. 98; Case of Carpio-Nicolle et al., Judgment of November 22, 2004. Series C No. 117, para. 131; and Case of Genie Lacayo. Petition for Judgement Review of January 29, 1997. Order by the Court of September 13, 1997. Series C No. 45, paras. 10-12.