11 49. As for the violation of the right to humane treatment (Article 5 of the Convention) alleged by the petitioners, the State contended that applying a clause of a contract can hardly be viewed as “cruel” treatment. The State also asserted that the complainants were unsuccessful at proving that they had been threatened, and noted that because the relevant labor law, that was applicable to the alleged victims was the Organic Labor Law rather than the Law of the Public Service Statute, they were eligible to apply for civil service positions through a competitive process. 50. The State asserted with regard to the charge of violation of the fair trial rights enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention that the alleged victims were not the target of administrative sanctions, but of the application of a contractual clause that granted the power to the employer, as well as to the employee, to terminate the labor relationship simply by giving notice to cease their activities, without cause. In this regard, the State considered that the complainants were not “removed from office” (‘destituido’ a term reserved for public officials) but rather the legal provision that was applicable to them was the terms of their respective contracts and, supplementarily, the Organic Labor Law, which provides for the payment of certain amounts of money to cover the time that the dismissed employee is engaged in securing new employment. The State claimed that the amounts of money that the alleged victims were entitled to under the law were made available to them. Furthermore, the State asserted that the Law does not prescribe any procedure prior to terminating a contract and it was not necessary to give cause for the acts of dismissal. In this regard, it noted that the alleged victims were not public officials, as defined by the Constitution and the Public Service Statute. 51. The State went on to review some of the proceedings for constitutional relief through amparo constitucional that were brought by the alleged victims, and found that no errors of any kind were committed in hearing those cases and that, in every instance, it was up to the alleged victims to file the appropriate motions at the first opportunity in the procedure. 52. The State contended that the alleged victims wrongly filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor on May 27, 2004. On this issue, it argued that the complainants “intend to confuse the IACHR with the filing of non suitable remedies for the restoration of their allegedly violated right, without distinguishing between [on the one hand] the criminal responsibility that civil servants have as a consequence of their duties and of the public property they are in charge of, and, on the other hand, the consequences and obligations arising from termination of a labor relationship, which is settled in the labor rather than the criminal courts.” To the State, it is obvious that, based on each response provided by the public institutions, it has not violated the human rights of the alleged victims. 53. As for the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression (Article 13 of the Convention), as asserted by the petitioners, the State reiterates that the rescission of the contracts of the alleged victims was not a punishment, but rather involved the simple application of a contractual clause pursuant to the law. The State stressed that no court proceedings were brought against the complainants for issuing statements of a political nature, nor has the media been sanctioned or censured for being a vehicle of expression of citizens who supported the petition for the recall referendum.