-41Her dismissal occurred on March 29, 1996 with a notice from a notary public, through which she was sent a copy of the Municipality Resolution No. 423 dismissing her “on the grounds of redundancy,” because she had failed to attend the staff assessment. Even though the assessment scheduled for March had been cancelled by the mayor himself, 186 union workers were dismissed. She filed an appeal for legal protection together with 30 co-workers. The trial court issued a favourable judgment. Later, the Sala de Derecho Público (Public Law Chamber) set aside the court of original jurisdiction decision, so the workers resorted to the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court), which “finally issued a favourable decision.” At the same time, the Union had succeeded in having the Courts set aside the Municipality Resolution providing for the assessment. The Mayor kept refusing to comply with the court decisions. She felt “frustrated and disappointed because of the lack of justice.” They went to the Ombudsman, to the Church and to human rights organizations. At the time she was dismissed she was 37 years old, and she had two daughters aged 9 and 5. Following her dismissal, she had to send them to a different school. Because of her dismissal she had to work in many different areas, including bus ticket seller, baby sitter, and cleaning houses. She is currently working as a vendor in a street market. She had to spend more time away from her daugthers, neglecting them. The witness and her family have serious health problems, for which they have not been able to afford treatment. She is living with a relative and her income is barely enough to pay the electricity and water bills. She feels “bad, tired, sick, frustrated and burdened by a financial needs she cannot satisfy.” In May 2003 she was advanced 500 new soles as salary payments owed her for October, November and December 1995, and later “[they] paid off the entire debt.” Now “that [she] know[s] that this high court of justice is hearing [her] case, [her] hopes of justice have revived and [she] believe[s] the reinstatement judgments of the Peruvian courts will now be complied with.” 4. Agustín Jimio-Huanca, alleged victim His employment with the Municipality of Lima started in 1985. He worked in the cleaning corporation as a solid waste collection assistant. In 1996 he lost his job and his salary: “[his] only income to feed his family and to educate [his seven] children.” He filed an action of amparo together with other co-workers. After several years of litigation, the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) issued a judgment ordering the ESMLL to reinstate them. However, the judgment was never carried out. A year after the issuance of the judgments, “[he] suffered headaches, and depression, and felt sad and angry.” At present, health and for his family. In 1988 he had an accident on the job. In got worse and he had to be admitted at the hospital. He had three from insomnia, he fears for his 1989, his health surgeries on his