-81punishment of those responsible for such non-compliance constitute an alarming and continuing pattern of denial of justice;” d) “the Municipality of Lima has failed to abide by all the judgments rendered by the Sala de Derecho Público (Public Law Chamber) of the Corte Superior de Lima (Supreme Court of Lima) and the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) that admitted the appeals for legal protection requested by the [alleged] victims from 1996.” Even though all judgments passed on to acquire the authority of a final judgment, none of them have been complied with by the Municipality of Lima; e) when the State has purported to comply with some court decisions ordering the reinstatement of workers to their jobs, “it has done so by providing that in the event there is no vacancy or budget availability, the worker will have to request an authorization for job creation along with the respective budget availability, remaining on call in the meantime without pay and subject to new assessment.” The State has thus shifted onto the alleged victims the burden of complying with an obligation which is not theirs; f) the State has failed to prove in court in absolutely none of the cases that the judgments it disregarded have resulted from an act of illegal collusion between the legal representatives of the SITRAMUN-LIMA or its legal counsel and the judicial authorities responsible for said court decisions; g) as regards the closing down of ESMLL, the Consejo Provincial de Lima (Provincial Council of Lima) issued Agreement-in-Council No. 166, dated June 10, 2004, whereby it adopted a legislative initiative, the ‘Bill declaring the dissolution and winding up of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) ESMLL’ for approval by the Congress of Peru. This bill clearly indicates the intention of the Municipality of Lima to “legitimize” the illegal closing down of the corporation, and is a reaction to the judgment rendered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on July 8, 1998, declaring Agreement-inCouncil No. 036 null and void; h) as regards the reinstatement of ESMLL employees ordered by the Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court), the Municipality of Lima assumed that said court order allowed the interpretation that the payment made to said workers by the Liquidation Board, constituted per se the collection of social benefits on the part of some of the alleged victims, something which would exclude them from the reinstatement order. The alleged victims of ESMLL that were part of the amparo proceeding and who collected an amount of money as so-called social benefits may not be excluded from the scope of the judgment given that such exclusion would render the remedy sought by the aggrieved parties illusory and ineffectual, which is contrary to the requirements of the recourse provided for in Article 8 of the Convention. After filing the complaint, a large No. of plaintiffs collected an amount of money as settlement of social benefits. It should not be considered that such act constitutes an implied waiver, in the sense of abandoning the cause of action stated in the complaint, for, according to the Peruvian legal system, an action may only be waived by means of an express document bearing a signature authenticated before the relevant court, since Article 341 of the Code of Civil Procedure of Peru sets forth that waiver is not presumed.