-93243. The Court notices that, with respect to the compliance with the aforementioned orders of amparo of November 18, 1998 and April 9, 1999 issued by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court), the court in charge of their enforcement ordered the Municipality to comply with the reinstatement (supra para. 204(38)). 244. Based on the foregoing considerations and on the body of the Court has determined that the State has not complied with the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on November 21, 1998 and April 9, 1999, therefore incurring in an unjustified years in the compliance with these final orders of amparo. evidence in the case, the orders issued by 18, 1998, December delay of six to seven 245. In accordance with the explanations in paragraph 227 hereinbefore, the victims of the non-compliance with these three orders of amparo are the fourteen persons identified as plaintiffs in favor of whom said orders were issued and who are included in the list of victims attached hereto. C) Judgments on dismissals for striking declared illegal. 246. This group of judgments encompasses, on one hand, the decision rendered by the Sala Corporativa Transitoria Especializada en Derecho Público (Corporate Provisional Chamber Specializing in Public Law) on November 16, 1998, whereby it affirmed the judgment rendered by the court of original jurisdiction, which had decided to “void of all legal effects” Mayoral Resolution No. 575 of April 1, 1996 “that declare[d] the illegality of [a] strike called by the […] SITRAMUN” “with all the other provisions therein”, “ordering the back payment of compensations to those civil servants that have been affected” (supra para. 204(42)). The amparo for legal protection was filed by the Union for the benefit of all its members. 247. In its closing arguments brief, the State stated that there is no way said judgment can be associated with any dismissal or with any individual person and that it does not include any order and, consequently, it requested that the judgment be excluded from the instant case. 248. In this respect, the Court points out that the abovementioned judgment includes a general order that should be fulfilled with respect to all those SITRAMUN members who were dismissed under Mayoral Resolution No. 575, and that the beneficiaries thereof are individuals that can be determined. Although the judgment of November 16, 1998 does not order the reinstatement of plaintiffs, it does order that the affected workers be paid their compensations. Furthermore, in the second whereas clause it stated “[…] the purpose of these proceedings is limited to restore things to the position they had before the breach […].” The logic consequence of the abovementioned is the reinstatement of said workers to their jobs. 249. As regards the determination of the beneficiaries of said judgment of November 16, 1998, in the application the Commission pointed out that the alleged victims were 288 persons. The Court has verified that 45 persons out of such group must benefit by the compliance with said judgment of November 16, 1998, since they have submitted to the Court copies of the resolution whereby they were dismissed, which proved they were dismissed under Resolution No. 575. The Court considers said 45 persons to be victims, and their names are included in the list of victims attached hereto.