30. According to the petitioners, this recognition of responsibility was reiterated in Law No. 27803 of July 29, 2002, promulgated to resolve the irregularities caused by collective dismissals in public administration. They also indicate that later on August 14, 2004, the Ministry of Labor reiterated its recognition of responsibility in official letter no. 349-2004-MTPED/DVMT, which established that the workers had had their constitutional rights infringed upon in the collective dismissal process, as per their allegations. 31. The petitioners point out that as a result of these recognitions, 34 of the alleged victims in this case were included on the Third List of Irregularly Dismissed Workers, pursuant to the provisions of Law No. 27803. In addition, they indicate that on October 20, 2004, the Human Rights Office of the Ministry of Foreign Relations and the Technical Advisor of the High Office of the Ministry of Labor signed a joint opinion addressed to the Chair of the Board of Directors of PETROPERÚ, which affirmed that: […] the rules in question that the PETROPERU company applied infringed on the constitutional rights mentioned in the previous point, as well as on the precepts established in the American Convention on Human Rights, in particular Art. 8 (on fair trial) and Art. 24 (on equality before the law). 32. The petitioners state that in spite of the cited manifestations recognizing responsibility in the domestic sphere and the different proposals worked on by the parties during the process to obtain a possible friendly settlement agreement before the Inter-American Commission, none of the alleged victims have obtained satisfactory reparation measures from the State, which has placed not only the alleged victims, but also their families, in a completely defenseless situation. According to the most recent information alleged by the petitioners, five of the alleged victims have died waiting for reparations.8 33. The petitioners indicate that of the 80 surviving petitioners, 34 of them were included on the Third List of Irregularly Dismissed Workers published on October 2, 2005. Of these, three of the petitioners opted for the benefit of early retirement,9 two for reincorporation,10 and 29 did not select any benefit.11 Moreover, the petitioners say that the State’s intention in providing reparations to some of the petitioners during processing of the case before the American Commission would not in any way affect the competence of that body from continuing to hear the matter. On the contrary, the petitioners believe that these acts are recognition of the violations against them. The petitioners argue the State’s opportunity to grant reparations to the alleged victims with its own means would have been when the alleged victims filed and exhausted domestic remedies before presentation to the international instance. 34. Finally, during processing of the case, the petitioners have challenged the State’s argument that the workers accepted social benefits and that this therefore 8 Jaime Garcés Sandoval, Leyther Quevedo Saavedra, Ana Rojas Flores, Norberto Vilela Jiménez, and Fredesvinda Sócola Clavijo. 9 Juan Echandía Ochoa, Manuel Mechado Sernaque, and Eduardo Panta Valladares. 10 Federico Antón Antón and José Torres Namuche. 11 Luís Abad Saldarriaga, Gregorio Albuquerque Carrillo, William Jacinto Aleman Benitez, Sebastián Amaya Fiestas, Jorge Cabanillas Dedios, Santos Calderón Ávila, Luís Carrasco Lozada, Alberto Chira Guerrero, Mario Duque Mogollón, Jaime Garcés Sandoval, Pedro Carlos Garcés Solís, Gonzalo Ginocchio Guerrero, Pedro Infante Antón, José William Jacinto Zavala, Pedro López Antón, Abraham Montero Ramírez, Emilio Augusto Morales Silva, Miguel Hugo Morán García, Gregorio Jaime Noriega González, Ricardo Quevedo Herrera, Edwin Quevedo Saavedra, José Félix Saavedra Medina, Catalino Sandoval Ancajima, Dionisio Sandoval Flores, Joaquín Santillán Zavala, Luís Tavara Ramírez, Jorge Carlos Tinedo Puell, Oscar Valiente Paico, and Felito Vitonera Saldarriaga. 8