93. In the months of November and December 2003, the three alleged victims chose to participate in the "reafirmazo" and signed the recall referendum petition for the then President of the Republic Hugo Chávez Frías66. Also Mr. Jorge Guerra signed the request for a referendum, who worked as a photographer of the National Border Council67. 94. By communication dated March 12, 200468, the President of the National Border Council communicated to Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, Thais Coromoto Peña and Jorge Guerra, his decision to terminate their contracts as of April 1 200469. In the case of Jorge Guerra the Commission has information that indicates that he was not the one who signed [the petition], but that "the old ID he had in his house had been manipulated by a woman who lives there to sign in his name"70. He had also indicated that he would disavow his signature in the challenge process71. The State of Venezuela did not dispute the facts that Mr. Jorge Guerra signed the "reafirmazo", that he had been notified of the termination of his contract, that he had disavowed his signature in the challenge process and, that unlike the three alleged victims who did not challenged their signatures, he had kept his job. 95. On March 29, 2004 Rocío San Miguel Sosa sent a letter to the President of the National Border Council expressing her disagreement with the dismissal and indicating that "you are doing the dismissal directly, in your capacity of Chairman of the Agency; but not without having first sent the Executive Secretary of the Board, nineteen days before the formal act of notification, to warn me that the reasons [for dismissal] are none other than my signature requesting the presidential recall referendum”72. 96. The Commission notes that the decision to terminate the contracts with the alleged victims lacks motivation, indicating in the text of the letters only the following: "I am writing to you, in order to announce my decision to terminate your employment contract (...) as from April 1 this year"73. However, afterwards the 66 Annex 15. Form to collect signatures, August 19, 2000, Annex C of Annex IV of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 67 Annex 16. Appeal remedy (casación), filed by Rocío San Miguel, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña against the decision of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, July 6, 2005. Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 68 The notification of Rocio San Miguel contains a signature of receipt dated March 25, 2004. In turn, the notification of Magally Chang Girón contains a receipt of acknowledgment signed on 22 March 2004. For Thais Coromoto Peña said communication contains a signature of receipt dated March 31, 2004. 69 Annex 17. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Rocio San Miguel, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State’s submission within the admissibility process before the IACHR on January 16, 2008; Annex 18. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Magally Chang Girón, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State State’s submission within the admissibility process before the IACHR on January 16, 2008; Annex 19. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Thais Coromoto Peña, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State’s submission within the admissibility process before the IACHR on January 16, 2008. In accordance with communication of the then Executive Secretary of the National Border Council, the alleged victims worked for the National Border Council until April 30, 2004. See Annex 20. Letter from the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council to Prosecutor 37 of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, July 13, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 70 Annex 21. Telephone conversation between Feijoo Colomine and Rocio San Miguel, March 24, 2004, Annex B of Annex IV of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 71 Annex 22. Transcript of the interview with Rocío del Carmen San Miguel Sosa, before the Office of the Thirty-Seventh Prosecuting Attorney on July 15, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006 72 Annex 23. Rocío San Miguel letter to the President of the National Border Council, March 29, 2004, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACRH on March 7, 2006. 73 Annex 24. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Rocio San Miguel, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State’s submission within the admissibility process before the IACHR on January 16, 2008; Annex 25. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Magally Chang Girón, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State’s submission within the admissibility process before the IACHR on January 16, 2008; Annex 26. Letter from the Chairman of the National Border Council to Thais Coromoto Peña, communicating the termination of the employment relationship, March 12, 2004, Annex F to the State’s submission within the admissibility process before 17