2 II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION 5. The IACHR assigned the petition the number P-212-06, which was received by the Commission on March 7, 2006. On April 20, 2006, the IACHR requested additional information from the petitioners. The petitioners submitted additional information on August 10, 2006, March 5 and May 22, 2007. 6. The IACHR forwarded the petition to the Venezuelan State on January 8, 2008 and granted it a period of two months to submit its response. Said communication was received by the State on February 14, 2008. The State submitted its response to the petition on January 16, 2009, which was forwarded to the petitioners on February 24, 2010. 7. On January 29, 2009, the petitioners requested a hearing during the 134th regular session of the Commission, in order to address issues pertaining to admissibility and the merits of the case. On February 25, 2009, the IACHR rejected said request as untimely. On August 31, 2010 the petitioners filed another request for a hearing, which was not granted. III. POSITTION OF THE PARTIES A. Position of the Petitioners 8. The petitioners stated that the alleged victims Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña were employees at the National Border Council, assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. They noted that Thais Coromoto Peña had worked for the government for 20 years, 9 of which were at the National Border Council. Rocío San Miguel Sosa had done so for a total of 13 years, 7 of which she served at the National Border Council. While Magally Chang Girón had also worked as a government employee for a total of 6 years, all of which were at the National Border Council. 9. The petitioners asserted that on March 22, 2004, Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña were advised of the decision of the chairman of the National Border Council to terminate their contract of employment with said institution. In their view, said decision was based on “strictly political reasons,” linked to the decision of the alleged victims to sign a petition to hold a recall referendum on the term in office of the President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, as provided for in Article 72 of the Constitution of that country. 10. The petitioners stated that, in August of 2002, several opposition political parties and civil society organizations launched a drive to call for a nationwide ballot question referendum to ask for the resignation of the President of the Republic. For this purpose, the petitioners noted that a signature collection drive was carried out and the signatures were turned over to the National Electoral Council (hereinafter “the CNE”). On December 3, 2002, the aforementioned body decided to convene the referendum on the presidential term in office for February 2, 2003. The petitioners asserted that the Acting Chamber for Electoral Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice (hereinafter “the TSJ”) called off the above-mentioned referendum process and precluded any “electoral process, consultation or other mechanism of citizen participation in public matters” from being held until the National Assembly appointed new members to the National Electoral Council.