16. The petition states that the 85 alleged victims were former employees at the Northwest-Talara Area of Petróleos de Perú (PETROPERÚ) and that they were dismissed as part of a special program to promote private investment, which was based on a legal norm no longer in force at the time it was applied. The petitioners stated the irregular dismissal procedure infringed on their right to due process and prevented them ab initio from bringing an administrative challenge against this measure. The petitioners state that as a result of their dismissal, they received no incentives or compensation, and did not obtain any type of benefit. The petitioners allege that in seeking domestic remedies, they did not receive any type of judicial protection due to the lack of independence and impartiality of the administrative and judicial authorities. 17. With regard to the legal framework applied to them, the petitioners allege that on November 23, 1992, the Executive Branch issued Decree Law No. 26120, which amended the Law on Promotion of Private Investment in State Companies.4 They state that Article 7 of this decree authorized, following agreement with the Privatization Commission and via Executive Decree, adoption of all measures geared toward economic, financial, legal, and administrative restructuring –including personnel reduction--- of public enterprises. According to the petitioners, this law infringed on the rights to defense and equality of workers because dismissals made based on this decree excluded application of rules regarding collective dismissals set forth in the Law on Labor Training and Promotion, which are designed to provide guarantees that defend workers in cases of collective dismissals.5 18. The petitioners state that on July 18, 1995, a new law was enacted, 6 by means of which a new procedure was established for regulating collective dismissals. The petitioners maintain that with said amendment the rules of Decree Law No. 26120 were tacitly struck down, because the text of Law 26513 called for the repeal of “other provisions in opposition to this law.” Therefore, in the petitioners’ opinion, the collective dismissals to be carried out thenceforth must be governed by rules agreed to in the new law and not by those set forth in Decree Law No. 26120. 19. According to the petitioners, even though Decree Law 26210 had already been repealed, on January 3, 1996, the Executive Branch issued Executive Decree 072-95-PCM via which it authorized the company Petróleos del Perú (PETROPERU) to carry out a plan to reduce the workforce under the auspices of Decree Law No. 26120. The petitioners allege that this event caused, to the detriment of the workers, application of a law that had already been repealed, thereby violating the principle of legality recognized in the American Convention. 20. The petitioners maintain that the procedure established by Decree Law No. 26120 violated their right to legal due process and to minimum guarantees because it established a procedure that did not allow for the possibility of challenging the decision of the administrative authority that ordered the dismissal. The law stated that the administrative authority would simply approve the decision for the collective dismissal of workers without communicating it to the other party, contradicting the provision of Article 82 of the Law on Labor Training and Promotion. According to the petitioners, these events violated the principle of equality before the law because it did 4 Legislative Decree No. 674. 5 Legislative Decree No. 728 6 Law No 26513, via which the Law on Labor Training and Promotion was amended. 5