39. The State indicates that the union initiated an administrative dispute proceeding via which it sought to address the same issues that were declared without merit in the action for amparo. In this regard, the State, points out the Superior Court of Piura rejected the complaint because the necessary formal admissibility requirements were not observed for the complaint.12 40. The State maintains that at all times there was a judicial process with preestablished rules of which the complaining party made use, and their claim was rejected in several instances. The State adds there was no indication to lead to the presumption of a lack of independence or autonomy on the part of the judicial authority, particularly since the judgments rendered on the claims made by the petitioners were duly supported. 41. In addition, the State alleges that the workers included in the petition in the majority had accepted the incentives offered by the company for the voluntary resignation of the workers. In effect, according to the State, the majority of the petitioners collected their social benefits through judicial procedure and many of them collected a good percentage of a reduced settlement in judicial processes, which in accordance with Peruvian law constituted a perfect end to the labor relationship. 13 42. In its most recent communications, the State also indicates that at present a series of actions have been adopted to make reparations to all the former employees dismissed in an irregular manner between 1990 and 2000, approximately twenty-eight thousand (28,000) former employees. In keeping with this objective, it states that on July 28, 2002, Law No. 27803 was published by means of which recommendations made by the commissions created by virtue of Laws 25452 and 27585 were implemented. The State explains that this law established a special benefits program that workers dismissed under irregular conditions could access and alternatively would have available to them the following benefits: i) labor reincorporation or relocation; ii) early retirement; iii) financial compensation; and iv) labor training and reconversion. 43. Based on this law, the State alleges that the petitioners have had the opportunity to make use of the measures established by the State with a view toward making reparations to all former employees dismissed in an irregular manner. With regard to these benefits, the State indicates that 34 of the petitioners or alleged victims in this complaint have made use of these measures. It specifically states that two petitioners chose the benefit of labor reincorporation, three petitioners opted for early retirement, and 29 petitioners have not yet selected a specific benefit. 44. The State maintains that, as the IACHR has reiterated on different occasions, that international protection provided by the Convention’s supervisory bodies is subsidiary, auxiliary, and complementary. In light of the subsidiary nature of the Inter-American Human Rights System, the State maintains that a decision issued by the bodies of the inter-American system or a possible agreement on a friendly settlement between the parties cannot include those petitioners who are processing or who have received certain benefits established under Law 27803. This is based on the 12 The State alleges that the Court found that the complaint had not been signed by the alleged injured workers, that it had not been proven that the workers were members of the union, and that the decision subject to the administrative dispute process had not been specified in detail. 13 To support its arguments, the State annexed to the file for the IACHR, copies of judicial policies obtained by the company via labor court channels on behalf of the dismissed workers. 10