61 in order for the latter to make a final decision.29 The workers of the INTEL could avail themselves of an administrative proceeding prior to dismissal.30 Once the dismissal orders were issued, the workers of the IRHE and the INTEL had the right to appeal before the Central Company Committee, and the Director or General Manager of the Institution. 31 Within the special labour jurisdiction, the workers had the right to appear before the Conciliation and Decision Boards, which were tripartite labour courts, to apply either for reinstatement or for the payment of indemnification. Depending on the amount, the decision of the Conciliation and Decision Board could be appealed through the filing of an appeal remedy with the Superior Labour Court. The judgment that this Court hands down, as second instance in a proceeding originating in the Conciliation and Decision Boards, is final and may not be appealed. Nevertheless, in a conditioned manner, through the constitutional guarantees protection remedy, the Full Supreme Court could hear the decisions of the Superior Labour Court. If the Superior Labour Court, in the second instance, hears a proceeding from the Sectional Labour Courts, in some cases the labour cassation remedy may be applied before the Third Section of the Supreme Court.32 29 cfr. testimony of José Mauad-Doré delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Manrique Mejía 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; Law 8 of February 25, 1975; Internal Regulations of the Water Resources and Electric Power Institute, approved through Resolution N° 58-SRI of July 5, 1985; Report of the Labour Law Committee of the National Bar Association sent on November 22, 1993, to the President of the National Bar Association; volume I of the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court in connection with the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Vicente Archibold Blake, in representation of Magaly V. de-Herrera, Félix Herrera-C., Aníbal Herrera-Santamaría, Manuel J. Herrera-S., Eric Alexis González, Antonio González, Evangelista Granja-C., Esther M. Guerra, Melva Guerrero-Samudio, Raúl González-Rodaniche, Alfredo Guerra, and Eduardo Gaslín-Caballero; volume I of the record of the case before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court, concerning the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representaion of Miguel Angel Osorio, Sergio Ochoa-Castro, Christian Eliécer-Pérez, Rúben D. Pérez, Giovani E. Prado-S., Fredys Pérez, Miguel L. Bermúdez-T., and Andrés Bermúdez; volume I of the record of the case before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court, concerning the fulljurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Luis Anaya, Juan Bautista Quijada-B., Cayetano Cruz, and Jaime E. Camarena; volume I of the record of the case before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court, concerning the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Andrés A. Aleman -L., Santiago Alvarado, Pedro Atencio-Madrid, Javier Atencio-Arauz, Víctor Arauz-Núñez, Rubén D. Barraza, Luis Bernuil-Z., Alba Oritela-Berrio, José Inés Blanco-Obando, and Jaime A. Batista; volume I of the record of the proceedings before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court in connection with the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Carlos del-Cid in representation of Yadira Delgado, Luis Alfonso Estribi-R., Alfonso Fernández-Urriola, Eleno Augusto GarcíaCastro, Alejandrina Gordon-Rivera, Ricardo Antonio Guiseppitt-Pérez, Rigoberto Isaacs-Rozzi, and Marisol Landau; and volume I of the record of the case before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court, concerning the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Carlos del-Cid in representation of Ivanor Alonso, Arnoldo Aguilar-U., Lionel Angulo-C, Luis Coronado, Elberto Luis Cobos, Carlos Catline-Todd, Judith de-la-Rosa-de-Correa, and Alfonso Chambers. 30 cfr. testimony of José Mauad-Doré delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000. 31 cfr. Law 8 of February 25, 1975; Internal Regulations of the Water Resources and Electric Power Institute, approved through Resolution N° 58-SRI of July 5, 1985; and report of the expert Maruja BravoDutary, delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; 32 cfr. testimony of Manrique Mejía 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,