4 10. On April 7, 1995 the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. Although both the State and the petitioners informed the Commission that they were interested in reaching a friendly settlement, after almost three years during which three meetings were held to try and reach a settlement, "the Commission considered that the action for settlement had been exhausted and initiated the legal proceeding." 11. On October 16, 1997, during its 97th session, the Commission approved Report No. 37/97, which was forwarded to the State on October 17, 1997. In this report, the Commission concluded: 148. That the acts of the State public authorities by which the Legislative Assembly adopted Law 25 of December 14, 1990, the Judiciary declared that it was almost completely constitutional and the Executive applied it and on the basis of which the human rights of the petitioners were violated and all their claims were rejected are incompatible with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. 149. That, with regard to the 270 persons in whose name this case has been filed, the State of Panama has failed to comply with its obligations under the following provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights: ArticIe 8 (Right to a Fair trial), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex post Facto Laws), Article 10 (Right to Compensation), Article 15 (Right of Assembly), Article 16 (Freedom of Association), Article 24 (Right to Equal protection), and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). 150. That with regard to these same persons the state of panama has failed to comply with its obligation to recognise and guarantee the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Panama is a State Party. 151. That the state has not complied with the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, since it has not adapted its legislation to the provisions of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission determined: 1. To recommend to the Panamanian State that it should order the reinstatement of the workers dismissed under Law 25 of December 14, 1990 identified in paragraph 5 of this report, in their respective positions or in others with the same conditions as those in which they were working at the time they were dismissed; that it should recognise their back pay and other fringe benefits to which they have a right; and that it should pay them compensation for the damage caused by their unjustified dismissal. 2. To recommend to the State that, pursuant to the constitutional and legislative procedures in force, it should adopt all necessary measures to make the rights and guarantees contained in the American Convention on Human Rights fully effective. 3. To recommend to the State that it should modify, repeal or permanently annul the said Law 25. 4. To recommend to the State that the expression "to punish without prior trial" in Article 33 of the Panamanian Constitution should be duly interpreted, in order to comply with the obligation assumed by the Republic of Panama to adapt the provisions of its legislation to those of the Convention. 5. To recommend that Constitution that permits ex interest", should be amended Convention, to the effect that the rule contained in Article 43 of the Panamanian post facto laws for reasons of "public order" or "social and/or interpreted, pursuant to Article 9 of the American "no one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did