87 f) the Supreme Court declared the unconstitutionality of one part of Law 25, but it did not invalidate the judgments handed down in compliance with such part of the law as was declared unconstitutional. Arguments of the State 118. that: For its part, the State argued, concerning Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, a) the 270 public servants whose appointments were declared non subsistent had the opportunity to contest, in the administrative domain, the declarations of termination of employment. They should have filed the reconsideration remedy with the authority that made the decision, and the appeal remedy with the superior authority; b) in the administrative proceedings that correspond to the governmental domain, which start with the filing of a reconsideration remedy, the claimant had the opportunity to set forth and contribute items of evidence in support of her or his cause. The reconsideration remedies rejected in the administrative domain could be revised by the Third Section of the Supreme Court; c) the procedural rights were always respected. The petitioners intervened in proceedings established against the State; they offered evidence, exercised their right to the respective remedies, and even brought an action of unconstitutionality; d) in alleging inefficacy of the remedies, the Commission did not prove that they were rejected without having examined their validity. The fact that an internal recourse does not generate a favourable result for the claimant does not prove the absence or exhaustion of the remedies; e) the unconstitutionality remedy is not ineffective for having failed to take into account factual considerations; f) the Supreme Court cannot, in a judgment of unconstitutionality, order the reinstatement of dismissed officials or the payment of unpaid salaries; it can declare only whether or not a legal rule is unconstitutional. The annulment of the actions performed under the “paragraph” of Article 2 of Law 25, which was declared unconstitutional, should have been pursued through an administrative conflicts proceeding, not through an unconstitutionality remedy; g) the rules of the due process and the consequent judicial guarantees were complied with in Panama. Law 25 allowed the workers to appear before a previously-constituted court, and afforded them access to the highest court of the Republic, the Supreme Court; h) the petitioners benefited from the legal due process, they had the right to be heard by a court that had been previously established by the law, and the possibility to file applications with a competent, independent and impartial court;