112. The Commission has taken note of the information furnished by the State of Peru on initiatives undertaken since 2001 to provide a response to the collective dismissals issue. Those initiatives and their impact on the victims in the four cases are described in the section on proven facts herein. The Commission considers that the international responsibility of the State of Peru for violation of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection was triggered when the victims filed suits for constitutional protection (amparo), which were heard and disposed of in the above-described context without addressing the question as to whether or not the dismissals were irregular. The lack of an effective judicial response was, then, the factor that triggered the State's international responsibility, which is a fait accompli and has been analyzed and established in the preceding section. Initiatives that followed the consummation of that international responsibility are relevant for the purposes of determining adequate measures to redress that violation. 113. As regards the 25 workers dismissed from ENAPU, the Commission notes that in 2002 the Vice Minister of Transport and Communications recognized that the dismissals of all 25 victims had been irregular. In that connection, all of the victims are on one of the lists of irregularly dismissed workers; in this instance, the one published in the Official Gazette on March 27, 2003. As noted in the proven facts, the positions of the victims vary where the benefits provided under Decree 27803 are concerned. 114. As to the 15 workers dismissed from the MEF, two are on the third list of irregularly dismissed workers, and a third is covered by a ministerial resolution that was issued, establishing the irregularity of their dismissal. 115. In relation to the 84 employees dismissed from Petroperú, 33 are on the third list of irregularly terminated workers. However, only 4 opted for one of the benefits under Decree 27803. The available information suggests that the remaining 51 dismissed workers are not on the lists and have not received any kind of benefit. 116. Finally, with respect to the 39 workers dismissed from Minedu, all of them were included in either the second or third list of irregularly dismissed workers. Of those, 25 signed new employment contracts with Minedu, 6 received compensation, and 8 receive no benefit of any sort. 117. In recapping, the Commission notes three situations: (i) that of the individuals who are not on any of the lists, whose dismissals, therefore, have not been recognized as irregular at the domestic level; (ii) that of the individuals who are on one of the lists or who have been afforded some form of State recognition of the irregularity of their dismissal and opted for one of the benefits under Decree 27803; and (iii) that of the individuals who are on one of the lists or who have been afforded some form of State recognition of the irregularity of their dismissal, but did not opt for any of the benefits under Decree 27803. 118. Regarding the first group of victims (see Annex 2 hereto), the Commission finds that the appropriate recommendation concerns the creation of a fast-track mechanism to perform a case-by-case assessment of their dismissals, determine if they were arbitrary or not, and arrange appropriate reparations, including minimum elements of redress for arbitrary dismissal, in other words: (i) reinstatement in the same institution or another institution in the public sector in a position of at least the same rank that they held at the time of dismissal; (ii) if said reinstatement is objectively impossible, payment of alternative compensation; (iii) payment of a sum for unpaid wages and benefits;121iv) such other measures as may be applicable to provide non-pecuniary compensatory damages. The Commission finds that these components are consistent, for example, with the reparations agreed upon in the context of the implementation mechanism in the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) after the irregularity of the dismissals was determined in that case. 121 With regard to this component of the reparations, see, for instance, I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, operative paragraph 6. 23