53 82. Concerning the note submitted by Mr. Jean-Michel Arrighi, Director of the International Law Department of the OAS, concerning the suspension of guarantees of the Convention, the Tribunal adds it to the entirety of the evidence (supra para. 30 and 63). 83. The Court deems useful the two judgments of the Supreme Court of Panama that mention Article 8 of the American Convention and that refer to the applicability of international law in Panamanian internal law, which were submitted by the State during the public hearing on the merits, and it proceeds to add them to the entirety of the evidence on the basis of Article 44(1) of the Rules of Procedure. 84. In its brief of observations to the request of the Commission concerning costs and expenditures (supra para. 56 and 64) the State expressed opposition to the evidence submitted by the Commission because “none of the photocopies of the documents submitted […] as evidence proves that any or all of the 270 complainants would have incurred any expense on the occasion of these proceedings [and that said] photocopies [are] not authenticated.” 85. In this respect, and following the same criteria expressed in preceding paragraphs (supra para. 76 and 77), the Court rejects the objection filed by the State and instructs the incorporation into the entirety of the evidence of the documents to which objection was expressed, which shall be evaluated in conformity with criteria already defined by the Tribunal. * * * 86. As to the testimonial evidence received, to which no objection or contestation was expressed, the Court admits it only to the extent that it meets the purpose of the interrogation. 87. Concerning the reports of the experts offered by the parties, to which no objection or contestation was expressed, the Tribunal admits them and recognises them as evidence. VII FACTS PROVEN 88. As a result of the examination of the documents, the statements of witnesses, the reports of the experts, and the expressions formulated by the State and by the Commission in the course of the proceedings, this Court considers as proven the following facts: Before the passing of Law 25 a. on October 16, 1990, the Co-ordinating Organisation of State Enterprise Workers Unions submitted to the Government of Panama, which at the time was presided over by Mr. Guillermo Endara-Galimany, a petition with 13 items, to wit: non-privatisation of State enterprises; derogation of the laws that reformed the Labour Code; halting of the dismissals and immediate reinstatement of the leaders