44 may be requested for violation of the law or for whichever fact that may be contested. Law 8 of February 25, 1975, established that, in the event of unjustified dismissal, the workers had the right to go before the Conciliation and Decision Boards and to bring action for the dismissal, while requesting either their reinstatement, or the payment of indemnification, in both cases together with the payment of unpaid salaries. This type of court was created in Panama pursuant to Law 7, of February 25, 1975, and they are quite anti-formalistic courts that solved the problems that could arise in labour relations. The Conciliation and Decision Boards are tripartite courts, which had to be comprised of one representative of the workers, one representative of the employers, and one governmental representative. The important thing is that these courts are comprised of lay judges, that is, judges without any technical law education. The only legal requirement was for them to be 25 or over, and not to have been convicted for any offence; in other words, they had to be fully able and in exercise of their citizen rights. The workers’ representatives are required to have worked in a private company at least for the nine months that precede their appointment on the court, and the employers’ representatives are selected from the lists provided by the corporate organisation that represents them. In the case of the workers, the Ministry of Labour pays their salaries. The same applies to the governmental official, since the Ministry of Labour appoints her or him. The Conciliation and Decision Boards are part of the special labour jurisdiction, even when the budget on which they operate is actually not incorporated into the judicial branch, but into the Ministry of Labour. This has always created a troublesome situation for the existence of the Boards and the management thereof. One of her purposes as Director of the Boards was to try to detach them to a certain degree, as jurisdictional courts, from the administrative bounds of the Ministry of Labour. In principle, they were single instance courts with no recourse applicable against their decisions, but in the face of the situations prevailing and of convictions deemed arbitrary, the possibility to appeal judgments before the Superior Labour Court was established through Law 1 of 1986. If the Superior Court hears in the second instance a case that was conducted at the level of the Conciliation and Decision Boards, its judgment would be final and regarded as of last instance. However if, in the second instance, the Superior Court hears a case from the sectional labour courts which also belong to the special labour jurisdiction, in some cases cassation on labour matters shall apply, which would be processed before the Third Section of the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Superior Labour Court, which revise those of the Conciliation and Decision Boards, may reach the full Supreme Court, but in a very conditioned way: through the constitutional rights protection remedy. Within the governmental realm, at the time that a reconsideration remedy is filed, the attachment of evidence in support of the arguments set forth or of the reason why the revision of the act being questioned is being requested, is admitted. Upon conclusion of the evidence examination term, which should not last less than 10 nor more than 20 days, there is a period for allegations, which must be submitted in written form and backed by the parties on the basis of the analysis of the evidence produced and what is claimed. New, different, or additional evidence other than that presented at governmental level may be presented within the administrative conflicts jurisdiction proceedings. The governmental mechanism is exhausted when reconsideration and appeal remedies are filed with the authorities responsible for the administrative action, or in the event that there is administrative silence. The case before the Third Section of the Supreme Court in the administrative conflicts jurisdiction must be admitted, unless there is some element which would, because of formality considerations, warrant a correction. Within a term of five days, the Section issues a resolution whereby the matter is transferred to the Prosecutorial Agency for the submission of its report on