-100279. No decision must be taken on the argument submitted by the common intervener in the brief on requests and arguments as to the alleged violation of Article 25(1) by dismissing and closing criminal complaints (supra para.207) as the Court deems there is not sufficient evidence to sustain this issue. * * * 280. This Court has established that the alleged victims or their representatives can invoke rights different to those included in the complaint filed by the Commission, provided they are based on the facts alleged in the complaint.169 281. The Court shall not analyze the alleged violation of Article 8(1) argued by the common intervener for the representatives, under the terms he set it forth, since the appeals for legal protection regarding the dismissals have already declared that due process violations had been committed when the workers were dismissed, and such judgments have ordered the reinstatement of the workers (supra paras. 229, 234, 242, 246 and 250); the Court not thereof. X 26 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION IN CONNECTION WITH ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 OF SAME CONVENTION (PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS) ARTICLE 282. The Commission did not state that Article 26 of the Convention had been violated. Arguments by the common intervener 283. The common intervener for the representatives alleged that the State violated Article 26 of the Convention, allegation that is not included in the complaint filed by the Commission. The intervener said as follows: a) it is necessary to introduce the international legal rules and case law developed on this matter in order to establish the exact scope and extent of this right, taking into account the evolution of the interpretation of international documents and pursuant to the pro homine principle established in Article 29(b) of the Convention; b) the following events constitute a clear violation of the fundamental rights established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the American Convention on Rights and Duties of Man, in the American Convention and in the Protocol of San Salvador: the massive dismissal of workers of the Municipality of Lima, members of the SITRAMUN, who refused to participate in the Staff Assessment Program or who failed the assessment; the subsequent “irregular” imposition of a new assessment program in disregard of the law, which resulted in a “new and massive dismissal of hundreds of workers” members of the SITRAMUN; the dismissal of 418 SITRAMUN workers due to the commencement of administrative proceedings against those who rejected 169 Cf. Case of Gómez-Palomino, supra note 21, para. 59; Case of Palamara-Iribarne, supra note 25, para. 120; and Case of Acosta- Calderón, supra note 153, para. 142.