and to provide everything necessary to remedy it. 70 When assessing the remedies, there must be an examination of whether or not the decisions in the judicial proceedings effectively contributed to putting an end to a human rights violation situation, to ensuring non-repetition of the damaging actions, and to guaranteeing the free and full exercise of the rights protected by the Convention. 71 97. In the instant case, the IACHR observes that the alleged victims filed a series of appeals against the decision of May 13, 1996 that declared that the strike was unlawful, arguing violations of their right to a defense, among which an appeal for amparo with the Chamber of Amparo Appeals and Preliminary Trials of the Supreme Court of Justice, an appeal for amparo with the Constitutional Court, and enlargement of the appeal with this same body. 98. Likewise, the petitioners filed a series of motions against the order of dismissals issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on September 1, 1999, among which an appeal with the Constitutional Court, arguing that the right of the dismissed employees to due process of law and their right of defense were violated because they did not benefit from any hearing prior to their dismissal. 99. Finally, the Commission noted that, after filing motions for reconsideration and other motions, 28 persons were rehired. 100. The Commission deems that, in view of the above, 65 of the alleged victims did not benefit from any effective remedy to redress the violations of their human rights, specifically the right to due process of law, right of defense, and right to strike according to the terms examined in the present report. By virtue of the above, the IACHR concludes that the state violated the right to judicial protection as set forth in Article 25.1 of the American Convention in connection with Article 1.1 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 employees whose names are identified in the annex to the present report. V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 101. By virtue of what was indicated above, the Commission concludes that the Guatemalan state is responsible for violating the rights established in Articles 8.1, 8.2 b), 8.2 c), 25.1, and 26 of the American Convention in connection with Articles 1.1 and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the sixty-five employees who are identified in the annex to the present report. 102. On the basis of the review and conclusions of the present report, HE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS RECOMMENDS TO THE STATE OF GUATEMALA: 1. To provide comprehensive reparations to the human rights violation stated in the present report, including both pecuniary and non-pecuniary aspects. 2. To adopt measures of non-repetition, which are necessary to prevent, in the future, similar incidents. In particular, to ensure enforcement of the rules of due process in the framework of the dismissal of public servants, in line with the standards indicated in the present report. Likewise, the state must adjust its domestic law and practices so that restrictions on the right of workers to strike requiring a prior vote from the latter will abide by international standards. 70I/A Court H.R. Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 125; I/A Court H.R. Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community. Judgment of June 17, 2005. Series C No. 125, para. 61; I/A Court H.R. Case of the "Five Pensioners." Judgment of February 28, 2003. Series C No. 98, para. 136. 71 I/A Court H.R. Case of Ramírez Escobar et al. v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of March 9, 2018. Series C No. 351, paras. 251-252. 17