proved “perfect termination of the labor relationship.” In this regard, the petitioners point out the company unilaterally, after delivering the dismissal letters to the workers entered judicial policies with the Labor Jurisdiction for appropriate social benefits for the workers. The petitioners allege that, if some of the workers “acceded to a provisional assignment of social benefits” by withdrawing these sums that does not constitute perfect termination of the labor relationship. They allege that the State has admitted this situation because in its proposal for a friendly settlement, it employed reparation criteria based on domestic indemnities paid in cases of arbitrary dismissals, with which it is recognizing its liability, the insufficiency of the social benefits, and that appropriate reparation encompasses amounts and items different from those included in the these social benefits. 35. Based on the arguments of fact and law expressed, the petitioners request that the Commission declare this complaint admissible based on the alleged violations of the rights set forth in Articles 8, 9, 24, and 25 of the Convention, in accordance with the general obligation to respect and guarantee rights pursuant to Article 1.1 and the duty to adopt domestic legal provisions as per Article 2 of the American Convention. B. The State’s Position 36. The State alleges that in February 1996, the administration of PETROPERU S.A. of Northwest Operations, headquartered in the city of Talara, initiated before the appropriate administrative authorities a personnel reduction process known as “voluntary resignation with incentives,” which included a group of workers from PETROPERU S.A. The State indicates that, in accordance with the procedure set forth in Decree Law No. 26120, the workers included in the voluntary resignation with benefits process (no fewer than 12 monthly remunerations without prejudice to inclusion of their social benefits) were part of a collective dismissal implicitly approved by administrative authorities five days after the company submitted the request. Thus, the State affirms that nearly 90% of the workers involved in the reduction process opted for voluntary resignation with incentives. 37. According to the State, PETROPERU S.A. implemented the reduction program in full observance of the legislation that was applicable and in force at the time. The State maintains that by following a previously established process, it could not be stated that an arbitrary dismissal had occurred or that actions had been taken contrary to legal and constitutional rules in this area. 38. With regard to exhaustion of domestic remedies as they relate to the purpose of the petition, the State indicated in its original submission that the union workers at the company filed an action for amparo without exhausting administrative options or appealing the decision implicitly granted by the lack of administrative response. The State indicates that the union also requested a precautionary measure to render ineffective the letters to personnel inviting them to take part in the retirement program. The State points out that this request for the precautionary measure in question was declared admissible in a lower court, but was eventually overturned in a higher court. Later on March 18, 1996, the Talara Civil Court rendered judgment on the main file, declaring the exceptions employed by the company to have merit and the complaint to be inadmissible. Lastly, the State says that on July 3, 1996, the Second Civil Division of Piura upheld the decision. 9