archived; leaving unharmed the right of the alleged victims to file a remedy to the appropriate venues. 35. The information available indicates that although the decision in favor of the alleged victims refers only to the inapplicability of Decrees 057-90-TR and 10790-PCM, during the process of executing the decision, some of the judicial authorities who made decisions in the process recognized that the purpose of said processing of the execution of the decision was to restore the status quo ante and, thus, to achieve payment of the debt ECASA had to the alleged victims as a result of the application of the decrees declared judicially “inapplicable” because they constituted a violation of labor rights. 36. By way of example, it can be mentioned that expert analyses were ordered to determine the application of the decrees and the amount of the debt that had not been received as a result. In this respect, the attachments to the file include expert reports dated April 22, 1996 and September 8, 1998, indicating that the purpose of the reports was to determine the application of the 90-91 collective agreement, to determine whether or not Decrees No. 057-90TR and 107-90 PCM were applied, and to determine the amount that ECASA owed to the workers represented by SUTECASA. 37. In addition, the Superior Court of Justice of Lima, in a decision of November 10, 1995, declared the nullity of the appeal filed by ECASA, stating: (…) in this sequel to what was already settled in the principal action, there is no restriction whatsoever on the rights of the workers who are supported by the Constitution and the labor laws that governed during the period they rendered their services; in this respect, nothing can render invalid what was resolved by the Final Decision of the Supreme Court in an Appeal for Constitutional Protection (…) declaring the constitutional appeal filed by the Single Union of Workers of the Empresa Comercializadora de Alimentos Sociedad Anónima, leaving settled the right of the complainant workers, who have been acting through their Union to have their individual labor rights honored; (…) administrative decisions are ineffective when they violate the constitutional rights of the complainants, who have a legitimate right to demand payment of their fringe benefits, and the method they use to have their legitimate claims honored is irrelevant, all the more so when their already recognized rights have attained status as res judicata and it is counterproductive that the processing of execution and the process of liquidations would delay payment of the amounts owed to them and that the workers would have to confront new difficulties in addition to those they have already overcome, since the record shows that the handling of this case has been drawn out over several years, threatening to make the complainants’ rights illusory and to render without effect the appeal for constitutional protection. 38. The argument of the petitioner is based in the lack of compliance of a decision on they favor. Once they obtained a favorable decision of amparo, they acted in the process of execution in which on February 12, 1999, it was declared that amparo has only declarative effects even though during the procedure judicial authorities required expert reports to determine the amount of the debt. 39. Without at this stage analyzing whether the failure to pay the benefits that were not received as a result of having applied the challenged Decrees constituted a failure to comply with the decision, the Commission considers that during the process of executing the decision, the judicial authorities acted in a way that indicated that the process of executing the decision was the appropriate mechanism for achieving payment of the benefits owed. Under these circumstances, the Commission considers that the State failed in demonstrating the existence of