the initial petition. They noted that on April 4, 2005, Control Court 21 of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas gave its judgement dismissing the charges on the grounds that the facts stated in the complaint were not criminal offenses under the law, adding that on May 12, 2005, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of the case. The petitioners indicated that the appeal remedy (casación) was also dismissed. 20. The petitioners also argued that the alleged victims reported the incidents on May 27, 2004, to the Office of the People’s Ombudsman. According to the account of the petitioners, the complaint was lost by this Office and after resubmitting the documents, this office officially opened a case on June 29, 2004. On August 7, that same year, the Office of the People’s Ombudsman archived the case file. 21. Additionally, the petitioners noted that on July 22, 2004, the alleged victims filed an appeal for constitutional relief through an amparo proceeding with the Fourth Trial Court for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas; said appeal was found to be groundless on the merits on July 27, 2005. This trial court judgment was upheld on September 9, 2005, by the Third Superior Court for Labor Matters of the Labor Circuit Court of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. 22. As for the merits issues raised by the State during the admissibility stage, the petitioners indicated that while Venezuela claims that the Tascón list was a citizen tool to verify the legality of the signatures for the recall referendum, since 17 October 2003, then-President Hugo Chavez threatened to take political reprisals against the signatories in a televised public event. 23. As for the argument according to which a contractual provision allowed for the State to terminate such contracts, the petitioners pointed out that this should not be construed as an authorization for arbitrariness or that it absolves the State from invoking legitimate and rational reasons, other than any form of discrimination prohibited by Article 1.1 of the Convention. 24. The petitioners argued that given the facts described above, the State violated Articles 5, 8, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1 (1), 2 and 29 thereof , to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. 25. As to the alleged violation of the right to humane treatment, the petitioners assert that the Venezuelan State subjected the alleged victims to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, by punishing them for exercising a legitimate right, which deprived them of their livelihood, and stigmatized them in the eyes of the rest of society, upsetting their spiritual and family life, leading to feelings of frustration, which severely affected their life plans. 26. As to the alleged violation of their right to a fair trial, the petitioners contended, first and foremost, that the dismissal of the alleged victims from their positions of employment was an actual administrative sanction for exercising their rights. In the view of the petitioners, if the State was charging the alleged victims with having committed an offense, it had the duty to properly serve notice of the charges to them, bring the evidence against them to their attention and to hear their defense. Secondly, the petitioners alleged that both the criminal proceeding and the amparo proceeding for constitutional relief were marred by many irregularities and that the State did not fulfill the minimum standard of due diligence to investigate this type of. They added that, in the proceeding to seek constitutional relief through amparo, the alleged victims were not heard by an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable time and under the guarantees of due process. 27. As for the criminal complaint, the petitioners contended that the Office of the Public Prosecutor failed to take the necessary measures in the investigation, such as an on-site inspection to where the incidents occurred, or interviews to staff members assigned to the National Border Council. They further claimed that the decision to dismiss the case took place “behind the backs of the [alleged] victims.” In this regard, the petitioners argued that the Control Court did not summon the parties to the oral hearing that was held to receive their arguments on the motion for dismissal of the case filed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, as required by Venezuelan legislation. They asserted that they appealed to the Chamber for 4