138. The Court would note that the list includes the names of Jorge Humberto Verdugo Iturra361 and Edith Adriana Pérez Espinoza.362 Indeed, these two people were part of the group of teachers who filed a labor suit on August 13, 1993, against the municipality of Chanco,363 in the framework of the case of Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993. Together with the eight other claimants, they obtained a favorable judgment from the trial court.364 The Talca Court of Appeals, however, by means of an order issued on June 3, 1994, overturned the individualized verdict that had already been delivered in the first instance for José Humberto Verdugo Iturra and Edith Adriana Pérez Espinoza, and dismissed the lawsuit for these two people.365 This is confirmed in the report “Current estimate of amounts outstanding for failure to comply with judicial findings delivered in the case of the teachers by the courts of Chañaral, Vallenar, Parral, Cauquenes and Chanco,” submitted as an annex to the pleadings and motions brief, that did not establish an amount for the settlement owed to these two individuals.366 139. The Court notes that the main cause of this action is to determine whether the State is internationally liable for failing to execute judgments delivered in the thirteen proceedings that constitute the case and on the impact that the failure to execute these judgments could have had on other rights of the alleged victims. Therefore, in view of the fact that José Humberto Verdugo Iturra and Edith Adriana Pérez Espinoza were not recognized as beneficiaries of the final judicial decision by the court of appeals and do not have an assessment of the amount owed in the process Aguilar Lazcano et al. v. the Municipality of Chanco, Docket No. 221-1993, they cannot be held as alleged victims in the instant case, despite the fact that their names are included on the list submitted by the Commission in its Merits Report. 140. It thus falls to this Court to determine the State’s alleged responsibility for failing to carry out the thirteen judgments that make up the body of the case regarding the 846 teachers who are in fact covered by a final, non-appealable judgment and have an assessed amount owed to them. These 846 alleged victims who will be considered by the Court are named in the list attached to this judgment as Annex 1. B.2. Right to judicial protection 141. This is a case of 846 teachers who were claimants in processes against the municipalities and received a final, favorable judgment convicting the municipalities to pay the special nontaxable allowance created under Article 40 of 1981 decree-law 3,551. There is no dispute as to whether these judgments have been fully executed, despite agreements on payment plans that resulted in partial settlement of some of the debts.367 Therefore, in order to examine the alleged 361 His name is given as No. 755 on the list attached to the Commission’s Report on the Merits (folio 38). 362 His name is given as No. 796 on the list attached to the Commission’s Report on the Merits (folio 39). 363 Cf. Brief filed by Humberto Franzani Soto on behalf of the plaintiffs before the Court of First Instance of Chanco, August 13, 1993 (evidence file, folios 16227 to 16234). 364 Cf. Judgment by the Court of First Instance of Chanco, January 25, 1994 (evidence file, folios 16376 to 16389). 365 Cf. Order by the Talca Court of Appeals, June 3, 1994 (evidence file, folio 16400 a 16403). 366 Cf. Report “Current estimate of amounts outstanding for failure to comply with judicial findings delivered in the case of the teachers by the courts of Chañaral, Vallenar, Parral, Cauquenes and Chanco,” prepared by Claudio Bonilla, Guisela Gallardo and Gonzalo Polanco (evidence file, folio 9360). 367 Payment plans were signed in the following cases for settling part of the debt to the teachers: (1) Benavides Montaña et al. v. the Municipality of Chañaral, Docket No. 18,629-1994 (evidence file, folios 2198 and 2199); (2) Bayer Torres et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,274-1993 (evidence file, folios 17796 to 1780(1); (3) Bustamante Sánchez et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,071-1992 (evidence file, folios 17397 to 17402; (4) Belmar Montero et al. v. the Municipality of Parral, Docket No. 4,051-1992 (evidence file, folios 17200 to 17204; 49