19 87. The petitioners claimed that the alleged victims Magally Chang Girón, Rocío San Miguel Sosa and Thais Coromoto Peña were notified of the unilateral and early termination of their labor contract with an entity of the State, after signing a petition for a recall referendum on the term in office of the then President of the Republic and refusing to remove their signature from said petition. They contended that the dismissal occurred after the list of names and personal information of those who signed was made public at the request of the government, in a context of threats and retaliation against those appearing on the aforementioned list. They further noted that the alleged victims had worked for the State entity for 6, 7 and 9 years, respectively, and that out of all the employees attached to the same entity with an identical work conditions to their own, only the contracts were rescinded of those who appeared on said list as having signed the petition and refused to withdraw their signature after being required by the authorities of the entity to do so. 88. The Commission infers that, should the facts described by the petitioners be true, it could constitute a violation of the rights enshrined in Articles 13, 23 and 24 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the this instrument. In fact, if it is as claimed in the instant case a unilateral and early termination of a labor contract as retaliation for the decision of the alleged victims to sign a petition to hold a recall referendum on the term of office of the president, as provided for by the Constitution, there may have been a violation of the right to freedom of expression, to participate in government and equal protection of the alleged victims. If a violation of those rights is found, the IACHR will examine whether the alleged discriminatory treatment rises to the level of severity necessary to bring about state responsibility by virtue of article 5 of the Convention. 89. Additionally, the petitioners argued that the alleged victims were not heard by a tribunal which met the minimum requirements of independence and impartiality and heard their case in adherence to the principle of due process of the law for the restoration of their rights within a reasonable period of time. Should these facts be proven, the IACHR believes that they could tend to establish violations of the right to a fair trial and to judicial protection, enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention. 90. In light of these potential violations, the Commission must analyze State responsibility in fulfilling the obligations to respect and ensure rights and adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary for the exercise of the rights, as provided in Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. The Commission also finds that Articles 29 and 30 of the Convention must be used in this matter as a guideline in interpreting the obligations of the State under the Convention and to determine the scope of the restrictions allegedly put into place by the State.21 91. Nonetheless, Commission has also inferred that the petitioners have not submitted facts that would tend to establish, in this case, potential instances of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment against the alleged victims, or that the right to freedom of association has been prejudiced and, therefore, the Commission finds the petition inadmissible as for the alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 16 of the Convention. Likewise, the Commission understands that the facts alleged by the complainants do not reflect prima facie a violation of the progressive development of the right to work enshrined in Article 26 of the Convention. 21 See IACHR. Report Nº 38/06. Petition 549-05. Admissibility. Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón. Venezuela. March 15, 2006. Par. 40.