46 and Decision Boards, and the administrative conflicts jurisdiction, all guarantees are ensured. The only difference is that at the level of the Conciliation and Decision Boards the proceedings are mostly verbal, while at the level of the Third Section of the Supreme Court the proceedings of the administrative conflicts jurisdiction are rather conducted in written form; all the same, nevertheless, they are impartial courts, and the quality of the judicial officials who hold the Justice positions is higher than that of those on the Conciliation and Decision Boards. In the case of the workers at the IRHE and the INTEL, pursuant to what was provided by Law 25, they would have to follow the same paths that public servants in general follow. Concerning those public servants who were not covered by special laws, there was no change, since before Law 25 they had the possibility to file a reconsideration remedy action or an appeal through the governmental mechanism, and later to exercise the right to go to the Third Section of the Supreme Court, through the administrative conflicts jurisdiction. Law 25 did not require a previous administrative proceeding for the application of the dismissal sanction. According to the law, the authority that took the decision to dismiss did not have to indicate at that time which evidence was available; it simply had to do it through a written document, pointing out the causes for which this action was being taken. What is important is for the worker to know which the facts were that justified the termination of the working relationship. Concerning the guarantees of defence in the face of arbitrary action, what Law 25 granted was the possibility to file remedies for purposes of revision in the governmental domain, and later at the Third Section of the Supreme Court. The “paragraph” of Article 2 of Law 25 established that the Executive Branch, through the Cabinet Council, would determine the actions that attempted against democracy and the constitutional order, in order to apply the administrative sanction of dismissal. This statement by the Executive Branch is, with respect to this Law, a condition for the applicability of the dismissal sanction. “Militant work stoppage” is terminology that is much used in common language but not in legal language, and this is an abrupt, non-justified suspension, without permission or authorisation from any authority. The work stoppage was not regulated as such in the Labour Code at least until 1994. The strike is mentioned in Panamanian legislation and it is a temporary suspension of the work. There may be a legal or an illegal strike. Strikes were reserved for private enterprise workers. The right to strike is also mentioned at constitutional level. Workers covered by special laws, such as those at the IRHE and the INTEL can exercise the right to strike provided they comply with a number of requirements. As to the procedure to be followed for a strike to be declared legal, it starts with a mandatory conciliation that takes place as soon as a conflict arises. Ministry of Labour authorities, which are administrative authorities responsible for mediation or conciliation duties, participate in this procedure to try to bring the parties into agreement. The term established by the law to attempt such conciliation is 10 days, which may be extended for an additional 10 days. If during that time the parties do not come to an agreement, the matter could be submitted to arbitration, a mandatory procedure for officials subject to Law 8. In the arbitration procedure one representative on the part of the workers union, and one representative on the part of the company are designated; they must reach agreement on who would be the third member of the Arbitration Tribunal, which must be established within two days. If the latter actually issues an arbitration decision, the parties must abide by it. In the event that any one party does not accept the decision, Law 8 establishes that the employer-employee relationship may be terminated with those not abiding by it and, in the case of the workers union, it could call a strike, which must follow the procedure established by the Labour Code. This strike declaration must be made eight days in advance in the case of State enterprises, so as to make possible an assessment of the danger and security factors that could be involved. On the basis