94 a) this right is of an instrumental nature; it serves as support for exercising the rest of the basic rights and permits the attainment of goals not expressly prohibited by the law; b) the Supreme Court maintained that Law 25 did not prohibit the right of assembly, and that the dismissal was justified by actions that the legislative and executive branches construed as attempts against the stability and existence of the Government itself. However, by meeting peacefully and publicly in a demonstration, the workers did not commit any illegal act. Since the work stoppage did not take place, it is clear that the workers were dismissed for participating in the demonstration of December 4, 1990; c) the law in force authorised public demonstrations and indicated that, for purposes of meeting peacefully and publicly it was not necessary to ask for permission, but only to notify the authorities 24 hours in advance. The State workers complied with this requirement, since they notified more than one month in advance about their intention to exercise this right; and d) the workers were dismissed for participating in a demonstration that was authorised by the law and by Article 38 of the Constitution of Panama. Although the law did not prohibit meetings, the workers who used this right were punished. Arguments of the State 145. For its part, the State argued that: a) Law 25 does not restrict the right to assembly. It may not be said that the administrative sanctions regulated under such Law violate the cited right; b) if the criterion that Law 25 violates the right to assembly were maintained, it would be appropriate to point out that Article 15 of the Convention, in relation to its Articles 27, 30, and 32, permits the establishment of restrictions to this right, in situations where there is either a threat against the independence and security of the State or any other public danger. These rules indicate that the limitations must be established by law, for which reason Law 25 establishes administrative sanctions in the event of an attempt against the public order, the common good, and the independence and security of the State; c) it is false that the 270 claimants would have been dismissed from their positions for having participated in the December 4, 1990, march and that this violated the right to assembly. In no dismissal letter are those affected advised that the termination of their employment was due to their participation in the march; such termination of employment was due to their participation in an illegal work stoppage that took place December 5, 1990, in several public institutions; and d) the Panamanian Government did not stand in the way of the previously announced march, which took place without problems. * * *