69 u. Law 25 changed all the provisions that were contrary to it, expressly the rules contained in Law N° 8 of February 25, 1975, Law N° 34 of September 26, 1979, Laws numbers 38 and 39 of September 27, 1979, and Law N° 40 of September 28, 1979;43 v. Law 25 produced a change in the procedure and in the competent court to hear the complaints of the State workers subject to special rules. In accordance with said Law, only the reconsideration remedy before the same authority that issued the orders, and the appeal remedy before the superior authority applied, which exhausted the governmental recourses. Later, the workers had the possibility to bring action in the administrative conflicts jurisdiction, before the Third Section of the Supreme Court;44 Eduardo Herrera-Hassán et al; volume VIII of the record of the proceedings before the Second Superior Court of the First Judicial District for the offence against the internal personality of the State, against Jorge Eliécer Bernal; volume VIII of the record of the proceedings before the Seventh Court of the Circuit, Penal Branch, for the offence against the internal personality of the State, against Eduardo HerreraHassán, et al.; volume VI of the record of the proceedings before the Seventh Court of the Circuit of Panama, First Instance, for the offence of sedition, against Eduardo Herrera-Hassán, et al.; and volume VI of the record before the Second Superior Court of the First Judicial District for the offence against the internal personality of the State, against Eduardo Herrera-Hassán et al. 43 cfr. Law 25 of December 14, 1990, published in the Official Gazette of Panama N° 21.687 of December 17, 1990; testimony of José Mauad-Doré delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; report of the expert Humberto Ricord, delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26 , 2000; report of the expert Maruja Bravo-Dutary, delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; judgment of the Full Supreme Court of May 23, 1991, concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24, 1990, by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al.; and by Basilio Chong-Gómez in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990; reply to the full-jurisdiction action brought before the Third Section of the Supreme Court on March 9, 1992, by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio et al.; judgment of the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of June 21, 1993, in connection with the actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio, Jaime Salinas-M., Giovanni E. Prado-S., Tomás A. Pretelt, Rubén D. Pérez-G., Sergio Ochoa-Castro, Sildee Ríos-de-Silva, Dorindo A. Ríos, Alidio Rivera, Sandra C. de-Romero, Ernesto Romero-Acosta, Isaac M.-Rodríguez, Fredys Pérez-M., Dony Arcesa Ramos-Quintero, Ricardo R. Ríos, Luis G. Risco-B., Ilka de-Sánchez, José Santamaría, Luis Arturo Sánchez, Enigno Saldaña, Teresa R. de-Sierra, Manuel Enrique Valencia, Christian Eliécer Pérez, Rodolfo G. Vence-R., Marisina del C. UbillusD., Rafael Tait-Yepes, Víctor Julio Soto, Cristobal Segundo Jr., Elvira A. de-Solórzano, Enrique C. SellhomM., Rodolfo A. Wyter, Ricardo A. Trujillo-R., Luis Olmedo-Sosa-C., Sonia de-Smith, and Damiel S. TrejosG.; judgment of the Third Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of June 30, 1993 in connection with the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Carlos del-Cid, in representation of Tilsia M.-de-Paredes, Marisol Matos, Nemesio Nieves-Quintana, Antonio Núñez, Regino Ramírez, Mireya de-Rodríguez, Ricardo Simons, Errol Vaciannie, Walter Vega., Eduardo Williams, Marco Tovar and Jorge Murillo; record of the case before the Full Supreme Court concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24, 1990, by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al; and by Basilio Chong-Gómez, in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990. 44 cfr. Law 25 of December 14, 1990, published in the Official Gazette of Panama N° 21.687 of December 17, 1990; testimony of José Mauad-Doré delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Luis Antonio Batista Juárez delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Guillermo Endara-Galimany delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; report of the expert Maruja Bravo-Dutary, delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; judgment of the Full Supreme Court of May 23, 1991, concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24, 1990, by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al.; and by Basilio Chong-Gómez in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990; Law 8 of February 25, 1975; opinion of March 21, 1991 by the Office of the Administrative Attorney of the Prosecutorial Agency, concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24, 1990, by Vicente ArchiboldBlake, in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al.; and by Basilio ChongGómez, in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990; record of the case before the Full Supreme Court concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21