159. Sixth, the Commission has the testimony of Rocío San Miguel, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña, who provided the following elements: - Rocío San Miguel Sosa referred to a conversation with the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council who indicated that the reason for her dismissal was for petitioning for the presidential recall as well as a conversation with the legal consultant of the vice presidency who told her she was a trusted staff member and by signing she expressed a gesture of distrust. - Magally Chang Girón referred to the fact that three of the four people who signed the request for a referendum were dismissed, and that she saw the communication for dismissal of the fourth person - Jorge Guerra – learning later that ultimately he was not dismissed, without knowing the reasons. - Thais Coromoto Peña mentioned that after being notified of the dismissal, the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council told her that if she withdrew the signature he could support her to suspend her dismissal as was done with Jorge Guerra. 160. Seventh, the payroll of the National Border Council for 2003, confirms that of the total of 23 employees of the institution, the dismissal was notified only to the four people in the Council who signed the petition for a recall referendum: Rocío San Miguel, Magally Chang Girón, Thais Coromoto Peña, and Jorge Guerra Navarro. 161. Eight, on many occasions, including one of the conversations referred to by Rocío San Miguel, there is reference to the fact that Jorge Navarro Guerra could keep his job because he objected to his signature. The State has failed to contest before the Commission that Jorge Guerra initially signed, was fired along with the three alleged victims, then participated in the process of challenge objecting his signature, and was precisely the only one of the four dismissed that could preserve his job. 162. Ninth, the Commission notes the continuation of the alleged victims contracts with the National Border Council for periods of eight years in the case of Rocío San Miguel, seven years in the case of Magally Chang Girón, and four years in the case of Thais Coromoto Peña, without them being resolved before the period agreed in each of them, except for the last contract that was terminated a few months after the alleged victims signed the petition for a recall referendum. 163. Finally, the Commission was provided by the petitioners of the transcript of telephone conversations of Rocío San Miguel with the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council and the Legal Adviser of the Vice President, who suggest that her participation in the referendum was the cause for terminating her contract. The State has failed to demonstrate the lack of authenticity of the transcript of these conversations. 164. The Commission recalls that there are formally valid decisions which can be used not as legitimate means of administering justice, but as mechanisms for achieving undeclared ends that were not evident at first sight and seek to impose an implicit sanction with a purpose other than those for which they have been prescribed by law159. 165. For its part, the Court has also referred to the importance of the concept of misuse of power in cases such as this: 159 IACHR. Application filed before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) (Case 12.489) against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, November 2, 2006, para. 128. 32