-83the [alleged] victims, reflects the lack of autonomy and independence of the Peruvian judiciary and its inability to guarantee the enforcement of court decisions which have acquired the authority of final judgments;” and c) the common intervener requests the Court to declare the criminal actions ineffective to redress the violation of the alleged victims’ right to have the judgments pronounced in their favor enforced. 208. The Common intervener for the representatives argued that the State violated Article 8 of the Convention; an issue that was not included in the application. The intervener pointed out that: a) the dismissals of workers as a result of the assessment programs and administrative proceedings following the declaration of illegality of the strike, the reduction of 30% in wages, salaries and pensions of the workers as well as the dissolution and winding up of the Empresa de Servicios Municipales de Limpieza de Lima (ESMLL) (Lima Municipal Cleaning Services Corporation) ESMLL were procedures undertaken in flagrant violation of the guarantees of the due process of the law enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention; b) administrative proceedings were unlawfully and arbitrarily instituted against SITRAMUN LIMA workers for exercising their right to strike and on other related grounds, for the purpose of proceeding to their unlawful dismissal. The statutory requirements for the Comisión de Procesos Administrativos (Administrative Proceedings Committee) to issue a report before commencing an administrative proceeding, to serve notice on the parties affected of the resolution to commence an administrative proceeding and to make the records of the administrative proceedings available to the affected workers were not observed, thus preventing them from exercising their right to defense. Moreover, the five-day extension requested in order to file the appropriate defenses against the resolutions ordering their dismissal, which were not based on findings of fact and conclusions of law, was not granted. Nor were the strikers requested to return to work prior to the commencement of the administrative proceeding; and c) Decree-Law No. 26093 indicates that the dismissal by reason of redundancy was a discretionary power conferred upon the head of each budgetary unit and not an obligation imposed by a rule ranking as a statute. The assessment organized by the Municipality of Lima was to be carried out on the basis of the terms “contained in Appendix No. 01”, which were not published. A new ground for dismissal was unilaterally and unlawfully included in those terms, which was directly related to the fundamental right to employment and the guarantee of job stability. Argument by the State152 152 The State did not submit independent arguments to refer specifically to the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention.