of the petition, from the time it was lodged to the decision on admissibility, is described in detail in Report on Admissibility 36/04 of March 11, 2004.1 In that report, the IACHR concluded that the petition was admissible with respect to the claims concerning the rights protected in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of said instrument. 6. On March 3, 2004, the IACHR sent a communication to the parties, informing them of the adoption of the report on admissibility. On June 25, 2004, the State presented its comments. Furthermore, on October 26, 2004 and March 2, 2005, the parties held working meetings in the context of respective sessions of the Commission. 7. The petitioners presented comments on May 19, 2005; January 2, 2006; August 30 and December 13, 2011; and April 4, 2013. For its part, the State submitted comments on March 14 and August 29, 2005; March 17, 2006; October 17, 2011; January 24 and November 26, 2012; and July 24, 2013. 8. All written communications were duly forwarded to the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The petitioners 9. The petitioners held that Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal from her position at the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman was based on an accusation made by her siblings concerning the alleged falsification of a notarized deed of transfer of rights. They said that the accusation was never proven and that judicial proceedings were never instituted in that regard. They said that, in spite of that, however, the Ombudsman did not take that fact into consideration in the decision to dismiss her. They also held that the accusation made by her siblings was a personal matter, a circumstance not recognized as a cause for dismissal in either the Ombudsman’s Personnel Regulations or the Labor Code. They added that both sets of regulations envisage grounds for dismissal based on acts committed within or against the institution, which was not the case in this instance. 10. They said that they attempted both an administrative and a judicial remedy against the Ombudsman's decision to dismiss her. With respect to the administrative remedy, the petitioners said that they filed an appeal with the National Civil Service Office, which declared that it lacked jurisdiction based on Articles 108 of the Constitution and 80.d and 80.e of the Civil Service Law. They indicated that those provisions state that the Office of the Ombudsman must act according to its own regulations. The petitioners recognized that the National Civil Service Office did indeed lack jurisdiction to decide on her dismissal. 11. Accordingly, the petitioners insisted that the suitable judicial remedy for challenging Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal was the appeal to the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters. They said that said remedy is established and regulated by Article 80 of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations. They held that the decision of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals was that it could not take up appeal because the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations cannot grant it jurisdiction over matters not covered by Article 303 of the Labor Code. 12. They argued that the Court of Appeals should have heard their appeal because that is what the Ombudsman's Personnel Rules establish. They said that the Court of Appeals should have applied Article 106 of the Constitution, which provides that in the event of doubt as to the scope of legal or regulatory provisions on labor matters, the latter should be interpreted in the manner most favorable to workers. They added that it should also have taken into account Articles 10 and 15 of the Judiciary Law (Ley del Organismo 1 See, IACHR, Report No. 36/04, Petition 1643/2002, Admissibility, Olga Yolanda Maldonado Ordóñez, Guatemala, March 11, 2004. See: http://www.cidh.org/annualrep/2004eng/Guatemala.1643.02eng.htm 2