them in the labor courts, but they chose to pursue the least suitable remedy of the amparo claim for constitutional relief as a mechanism to gain access “recklessly” to international bodies. 50. The State also believed that it had not transgressed Article 26 of the Convention, inasmuch as Venezuelan law sets forth criteria to provide monetary reparation to workers when they are dismissed, as well as payment of unemployment benefits as provided by the Organic Labor Law. The State considered the termination of the labor relationship to have taken place under a contractual clause that allowed it, and that it does not entail a violation of the workers’ rights or an abridgment of the guarantees protecting them, because it is not an obligation of the employer to maintain a life-long work relationship with the employee. 51. In addressing the alleged violations of Article 1.1 of the Convention, the State reiterated that the alleged victims were not discriminated against for political reasons or any reasons of another nature. It reiterated that the alleged victims simply did not have the status of public officials and were subject to the Organic Labor Law. In this regard, it emphasized that the termination of the labor relationship under the contractual termination clause cannot be viewed as discriminatory. IV. PROVEN FACTS 52. Taking into account the information available in the file, as well as publicly available information, the proven facts will be described in the following order: A) Preliminary issue on the use of certain evidence; B) Context of the petition for signatures for convening the consultative and recall referendum for the President of the Republic; C) The work relationship and termination of contracts of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña; and D) Internal processes initiated in relation to the termination of the contracts. A. Preliminary issue on the use of certain evidence 53. The Commission notes that the State asserted that the recordings constituted evidence obtained illegally, which led to its rejection in the domestic proceedings. The Commission recalls that according to the jurisprudence of the Inter-American System, the standard of proof are less formal in an international legal proceeding than in a domestic one and it has held that its bodies can “weight the evidence freely”2. In this regard, the Inter American Court has stated that they “must apply an assessment of the evidence that takes into account the gravity of attributing international responsibility to a State and that, despite this, is able to create confidence in the truth of the facts that have been alleged”3. The Court has considered that “it is legitimate to use circumstantial evidence, indications and presumptions to found a judgment, provided that conclusions consistent with the facts can be inferred from them”4. 54. Although the Inter-American Court has ruled that telephone conversations are protected under Article 11 of the American Convention5, the constant jurisprudence of the of the Inter-American system has also established that “the right to privacy is not an absolute right and can be restricted by the States, provided interference is not abusive or arbitrary; to this end, it must be established by law, pursue a legitimate purpose and be necessary in a democratic society”6. 2 I/a Court H.R., Case of Velasquez Rodriguez. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 127 and 128. 3 I/a Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 132 4 I/a Court H.R., Case of Gonzalez Medina and family v. Dominican Republic. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of February 27, 2012. Series C No. 240, para. 134. 5 I/A Court H.R., Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 114. 6 I/A Court H.R., Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 116. 8