121. In summary, therefore, this Court finds that the thirteen proceedings undertaken against the municipalities culminated in final, non-appealable judgments delivered in favor of the teachers, and debt assessments were submitted with individualized figures on the amounts due. Mayoral executive orders were issued in four of the thirteen processes;344 however, none of the executive orders could be executed, due to lack of sufficient assets to pay the amount ordered. Attempts were made in six of the proceedings345 to have municipal assets attached, but not all the cases succeeded in real attachment and sale at auction. Arrest warrants were issued against the mayors of the municipalities of Chañaral and Vallenar. In the end, six of the processes346 produced agreements for partial payment. Despite all these measures, none of the processes has yet led to full payment of the money owed to the teachers. B.14. Proceedings of the municipalities against the national treasury 122. The municipalities of Chañaral, Chanco and Cauquenes sued the Chilean national treasury for money to pay the amounts ordered in the various processes described above. Most of the lawsuits, however, were dismissed. In the case by the municipality of Cauquenes, the 24th Civil Court of Santiago initially admitted the municipality’s claims, holding, among other things: As a consequence, the necessary conclusion is that the State, in view of the procedural action by the municipality of Cauquenes, is bound by labor case 38-93 of the Court of First Instance of Cauquenes, and therefore a judicial statement or recognition of the situation is all that is needed for the treasury to proceed to implement the ruling. Such a statement can be defended based on the content of the petition lodged in the lawsuit in the instant case because the objective sought by the municipality of Cauquenes is to settle the credit of its own claimants.347 Nevertheless, this judgment was overturned on appeal, and in subsequent cassation, the result of the appeal was upheld.348 123. In the case of the municipality of Chañaral, the Supreme Court ruled on the motion of cassation by means of an order on June 12, 2008, denying the municipality’s claims.349 The decision was based on the same grounds as the Supreme Court order in the process undertaken by the municipality of Chanco.350 In its ruling on the motion of cassation lodged by the municipality of Cauquenes, the Supreme Court considered several arguments, including the 344 In the processes of Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993; Agurto Chein Juisan v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 63-1993; Barra Henríquez et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 123-1993 and Aguilera Machuca et al. v. the Municipality of Cauquenes, Docket No. 38-1993. This does not include executive orders issued in the framework of payment agreements, see infra. 345 The processes of Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,071-1992; Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992; Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992; Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993; Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993, and Alegría Cancino et al. v. the Municipality of Pelluhue, Docket No. 218-1993. 346 The processes of Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994; Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality de Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993; Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,071-1992; Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992; Salazar Aravena et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,096-1992; and Ramírez Ortiz et al. v. the Municipality of Vallenar, Docket No. 4,443-1993. 347 Order by the 24th Civil Court of Santiago, March 14, 2000 (evidence file, folio 10006). 348 Cf. Order 20343 by the Supreme Court, November 19, 2003 (evidence file, folio 2192 to 2196). 349 Cf. Order No. 15561 by the Supreme Court, June 12, de 2008 (evidence file, folios 1392 to 1396). 350 Cf. Order by the Supreme Court, June 12, 2008 (evidence file, folios 2081 to 2093)). 44