27 force, that is, “from October 23, 1992, until October 31, 1992, and from November 27, 1992, until April 15, 2010.” On this point, the representative “reserv[ed the possibility of] continuing updating [that] settlement [...] until the date on which the […] State complies with its [corresponding] payment. In order to make the calculation through the present day, the representative argues that a report from a Labor Ministry consultant indicating that the calculation must be made through the present day is binding. Also, the representative argued that in 17 years, the victims have not received raises, among other reasons in order to avoid taking the calculation of material damages from the 1993 salary restructuring into account. 96. The State argued that because the judgment of the Supreme Court ruling against the victims constitutes res judicata, the damage was not reparable. However, it submitted an expert accountant report “on the payment of the reimbursements (including applicable interest calculated through April 25, 2010) that SEDAPAL should pay, [equaling] nine million, three hundred and one thousand, five hundred and twentyeight and 68/100 nuevo soles.” “The amount in American dollars equals approximately US$ 3,260,000 United States dollars.” The State argued that “there is only a violation with regard to the 11 months during which it requested the deduction [from the victims, since] after that point, in 1993 when it establish[ed] the new salary system, not only did it subsume the scales but [also] a series of categories and a new harmonic and complementary form of regulating remuneration [was] design[ed].” 97. The State specified that the salary restructuring "was not the result of any kind of absorption of the repealed salary ratios given [that] they ceased to be in force with the issuing of law decree No. 25876." In this sense, the State insisted that "Law Decree 25876 eliminat[ed] the salary ratios as of December 1991, [the date on which] the State left companies free to unilaterally grant raises to workers not subject to collective bargaining agreements. That is what SEDAPAL did as of August 1993." With regard to the representative's argument that salary adjustments had never been made, the State argued that in 2002 "raises were given and the remunerative policy was restructured, for which reason they received a significant raise." According to the State, the report from a Labor Ministry consultant used by the representative "[is] not an opinion with the status of expert testimony" and is not binding because "the body with binding authority to issue the kinds of reports obligating the rest of the government agency to apply its standards" was "the directorship [of] productivity and labor competitiveness" of that Ministry. c.1.2. Considerations of the Court 98. For eight years, the parties have been trying to reach an agreement on the amount of the material damages using the various mechanisms brought to bear for this purpose; they have failed. Effectively, from the moment the State acknowledged its responsibility in this case (supra para. 18), the parties attempted to reach an agreement on the reparations owed before the admissibility and the merits report was issued.92 Following that report, a high-level commission was formed under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice and comprising representatives of the Labor Ministry, the Ministry of Mining and Energy, and the National Fund for Financing State Business Activity. The State reported on the meetings held by that Commission, the way in which it had heard 92 As such, in the Report No. 52-2004-JUS/CNDH-SE issued on September 3, 2004, the State mentioned the multiple Official Letter No. 023-2004-JUS/CNDH, of August 17, 2004, forwarded to SIFUSE, where it was stated, that in the framework of the case of friendly settlement in the present case, “in order to have a technical opinion on the arguments of the [victims], and considering that it does not have personnel specialized in labor law, it requested the support of one of the external consultants and the Ministry of Labor.” Report No. 52-2004-JUS/CNDH-SE of September 3, 2004, issued by the Executive Secretary of the National Council of Human Rights of the Ministry of Justice (case file of annexes to the application, tome I, annex 17, folios 150 to 153).