52 to the employees considered alleged victims in the Inter-American Commission’s application, following the guidelines established in the legal norms that provide for the review of the collective dismissals; (b) It requested the Court to “take into account, for reasons of equity, that the compensation it can grant to [the 257] dismissed congressional employees must be limited to the amounts indicated in Act No. 27803, [since] the [alleged] victims could have availed themselves of its terms opportunely, in accordance with the provisions of the fourth complementary provision [of the act]; however, they had preferred to resort to the supranational proceeding in the hope of obtaining greater financial benefits”; (c) It stated that, following the procedure to determine the exceptional cases of coercion to resign and of irregular collective dismissals, the Peruvian Ministry of Labor had published three lists of former employees who were dismissed irregularly, with the names of 28,123 people, of whom 27,187 opted for the benefits established in Act No. 27803; (d) It alleged that 2,229 persons had been reinstated, while 6,981 persons were pending, and financial compensation had been paid to 16,681 former employees, and (e) It questioned the expert opinion presented by the common intervenors in this case, according to which the total amount of the income and social benefits owed to the 257 alleged victims amounted to 185,496,417.88 million Peruvian soles, since it considered it “inadmissible that 257 [former] dismissed congressional employees aspired to receive [that] amount, […] while 16,681 former Public Administration employees who were also dismissed from their respective posts have received 149,604,079.00 [million Peruvian soles] in financial compensation.” 140. Also, regarding the legal costs and expenses incurred by the alleged victims and their representatives, it stated: (a) It is unable to assume the payment of these items for the processing of the proceedings at the domestic level because, according to the provisions of the Peruvian Code of Civil Procedure, the payment of these items is assumed by the party that loses the proceedings, and (b) It should be exempt from the payment of these items in the proceedings before the inter-American system because the State has had to intervene in this instance to show that the claims that are the purpose of the application are mostly groundless, which amply justifies its intervention in the litigation. The Court’s findings 141. Based on the findings in the preceding chapters, the Court has decided that the State is responsible for violating Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. In its case law, the Court has established that