Just understood the Mining Council's argumentsAfter reading the "LINCOLN XXIX" Resolution a few times finally I understand thei Council's arguments, which are not same as INGEMMET's. The sequence of events and their reasoning is as follows:
1. One employee of Macusani Yellowcake went to the bank to make the payments and the other went to stand in line at INGEMMET’s facilities.
2. The Macusani employee who was in line at INGEMMET’s was attended after 4:30 pm, but was entitled to be attended because he had entered the INGEMMET offices before 4:30 pm.
3. At the time of being attended, the Macusani employee did not yet have any voucher, so the INGEMMET servant (Virginia Vasquez) issued the proof of attention (a printed document) writing the observation "submits written request without vouchers". According to the Mining Council, here (with the printing of the proof of attention) ended the attention to which the Macusani Yellowcake employee was entitled.
4. Later, at 5:16 p.m. the other Macusani employee arrived with the paid vouchers and handed them out "through the window" to the Macusani employee who was inside INGEMMET’s.
5. The Macusani employee who was at INGEMMET’s approached to the documents reception office (again) with the 22 vouchers to accredit the payment of the right of validity corresponding to all Macusani’s claims.
6. The INGEMMET's servant decided to accept only the payment vouchers that were dated before 4:30 pm and to reject the others, printing a new proof of attention with the observation "14 payment vouchers attached". According to the Mining Council, the INGEMMET's servant shouldn’t have given attention again to the Macusani’s employee because the hours of attention had already ended. That is, the INGEMMET's servant should not have received any voucher from Macusani Yellowcake; it should be pointed out that if INGEMMET’s servant had not received any voucher then PLU would be losing all its claims.
Thus, according to the Mining Council, the principle of informality through which Macusani Yellocake is affirming that INGEMMET’s servant should have received the vouchers does not apply in this case, because in this case there are no doubts regarding the regulations. It is clear that an administered has the right to be attended only with the documents he carries with him at that time, so any attention made later is considered as a new attention. As in this case the vouchers arrived at the INGEMMET facilities after 4:30 pm then what Macusani employee required to present the vouchers was a new attention at the documents reception office, which by the time was no acceptable. In fact, by accepting the 14 vouchers, the INGEMMET’s servant violated the principle of impartiality by offering Macusani a deal that is not offered to any other administered.
It is clear to me that we have been incredibly lucky, because the servant Virginia Vasquez did not fully know the regulations (or maybe yes?) and decided to accept some of the vouchers by applying only her common sense and her desire not to fully harm an administered.
I do not know what the excuse of the local management is, but it should be noted that the rights of validity have been accruing for Macusani Yellowcake claims since 2015, and payments have always been made almost at the end of the possible term. As you can see in SIDEMCAT, the payments corresponding to the year 2015 were made on June 27, 2016, and the payments corresponding to the year 2016 were made on June 27, 2017, that is, in both cases only 3 days before the date on which the claims would had expired. The fact that a maximum period of two years is granted does not mean that one should wait until the last day of term.