42 participate. They were not interested in beheading the institution, especially in view of all that it had had to suffer during the military rule. What they did was to look for the persons who had participated the most in the organisation and in inciting workmates to participate. The background of the employee was regarded as a mitigating factor in order not to apply disciplinary sanctions, thus minimising what could be applied as a disciplinary sanction. He does not know whether the IRHE internal by-laws were applied; there were a number of regulations applicable for faults committed at the IRHE, but there was also the option to impose severe sanctions immediately, depending on the seriousness of the offence or misdemeanour committed by the employee. The participation of the workers in the stoppage was proven on the basis of their actions during the periods that preceded the stoppage. As head of the Institute he was issued instructions on how to proceed in relationship to the dismissals. The President, who said publicly that all those persons who had been participating in the work stoppage would be dismissed, issued the instructions. They acted somewhat discretionally. A number of reinstatement applications were submitted; however, he did not process them personally. All reconsideration remedies that were filed by those affected were forwarded to the institution’s Administrative and Legal Directorate in order for it to carry out the corresponding investigations. Approximately 15 were reinstated. All the workers could file a reconsideration application. l. Statement of Marta de-León-de-Bermúdez, a staff member of the INTEL, currently named Cable and Wireless Panama, S.A. From June, 1995 to May 29, 1997, on which date it became the Cable and Wireless Panama, S.A., company, she worked at the National Telecommunications Institute. In this company, where she still works, she holds the position of Legal Services and Government Relations Director. The reason that led to the dismissal of INTEL workers after December 5, 1990, was the holding of a work stoppage that had been announced since approximately November 18, 1990. Either coincidentally or incidentally, certain acts occurred which attempted against the sovereignty and democracy of the Republic of Panama. As to proof of ties between each of the dismissed workers and a conspiracy to subvert the constitutional order, the dismissal letters signed by the company’s General Manager were based on information that he could have had at that time. There is no proof of whether or not the pertinent authority at the INTEL sent information to the Prosecutorial Agency to process the respective penal accusations for the offence of sedition and rebellion defined in the Panamanian Penal Code. Employer-employee relations at the INTEL were not governed by the Labour Code, but by Law 8 of 1975. Within the framework of Law 8, repetitive absence or abrupt absence from the work site was a cause for dismissal. One single fault is not a cause for dismissal. As a representative of the company, the General Manager has the power to hire and dismiss workers. The dismissals of INTEL workers prior to the passing of Law 25 were made pursuant to Law 8 of 1975, which establishes the possibility of dismissal and permits the workers to file remedies through the labour jurisdiction. She does not remember whether the dismissed workers went to the labour jurisdiction, but she does remember that the workers dismissed prior to the passing of Law 25 filed reconsideration remedies before the General Manager and appeals as subsidiary actions. A proceeding is not necessarily required prior to the dismissal decision when the fault is serious and a cause for dismissal is applied. All of them had the opportunity to express their positions through the reconsideration remedy. By virtue of the remedies filed for the dismissals made before and after Law 25, nearly 15 workers were reinstated. All the cases were processed, including those which did not result in a reinstatement. The