adequately.” 47 The right to a hearing does not imply that it must necessarily be exercised orally and it can be substantiated in writing. 48 The authority in charge of the disciplinary process must conduct itself in line with the procedure set forth for the purpose and make it possible for the right of defense to be exercised. 49 This right is affected, for example, when the duration of the delay granted to exercise the defense is not adequate, considering the examination of the case and evidence. 50 68. In the case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama, the Court stated that the right to a fair trial had been violated because of the removal of 270 employees without granting them the opportunity to submit allegations and evidence to defend themselves before their dismissal. Regarding this, the Court considered the following: The victims of this cause were not subjected to an administrative proceeding prior to the dismissal sanction. The President of the Republic determined that there was a link between the work stoppage of the state workers and the movement of colonel Eduardo Herrera-Hassán and, on such basis, he ordered that the workers who had taken part in said work stoppage be dismissed, in presumption of their guilt. Even the method used to determine who had participated in the organization, convocation or implementation of the national work stoppage held December 5, 1990, that is, the identification of those charged, by the official of each institution, using in some cases “reports” prepared by different heads at the institution, was a denial to the workers of a formal proceeding prior to dismissal. Once the worker who had supposedly violated the rule was identified, she or he was dismissed by the delivery of a letter, without being allowed to present arguments and evidence for her or his defense (…). 51 69. In the instant case, the IACHR recalls that after ruling that the strike was unlawful, on May 13, 1996, the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court set a time-limit of twenty days for the Judiciary to terminate the labor contracts of the striking employees, and on September 1, 1999, the Supreme Court of Justice proceeded to implement the dismissal of four hundred four employees, including the alleged victims. 70. The Commission underscores that the alleged victims were not subjected to an administrative procedure prior to the sanction of dismissal, and therefore they were not notified of the start of a disciplinary procedure against them nor did they have the opportunity to defend themselves regarding this. This led to the dismissal of at least 27 employees who had not participated in the strike because their names had been mistakenly included on the lists of strikers. 71. The IACHR highlights that, although out of a total of 93 alleged victims, 28 were rehired, 65 were not, in spite of the fact that their dismissal took place in a proceeding without any of the guarantees of due process of law. The Commission considers that the argument whereby it was not necessary to conduct a prior procedure with the guarantees of due process because the cause of dismissal had already been provided for in the applicable law and was a direct consequence of the ruling on the strike’s unlawfulness does not provide grounds for depriving the victims of their possibility to defend themselves about whether or not they were involved in the above-mentioned case and whether or not the case should entail a sanction. This is even more evident when taking into account that the imposition of the sanction was not mandatory according to the applicable law, but rather that it was a power, all the more reason for requiring its review in the framework of a proceeding with due guarantees according to the terms indicated above. 72. By virtue of what has been indicated, the Commission concludes that the state violated the right to be heard, as well as the right of defense, as established in Articles 8.1 and 8.2 (b) and (c) of the American Convention, in 47 Thus, the Commission has indicated that: “To provide a hearing to a person under investigation implies permitting him to defend himself adequately, with the assistance of an attorney, in knowledge of all the evidence mounted against him; to provide him with a hearing is to permit him to be present at the examination of any witnesses that testify against him to permit him to challenge their testimony, and to cross-examine them in order to discredit their incriminating statements as contradictory or false; to provide an accused with a hearing is to give him the opportunity to deny and to detract from the documents sought to be used against him.” IACHR. Report No. 50/00 of Case 11.298, Reinaldo Figueredo Planchart v. Venezuela, para.112. 48 I/A Court H.R. Case of Apitz Barbera et al. (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) v. Venezuela. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of August 5, 2008. Series C No 182, para. 75. 49 I/A Court H.R. Case of the Constitutional Court. Judgment of Judgment 31, 2001. Series C No. 74, paras. 73 and 74. IACHR, Report No. 30/97. Case 10.087 (Merits) Gustavo Carranza, Argentina, September 30, 1997, para. 68. 50 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Constitutional Court v. Peru. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, paras. 81-83. 51 I/A Court H.R. Case of Baena Ricardo et al. v. Panama. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C no. 72, paras. 132 and 133. 12