not allow this groups of workers inter alia the right to defense and to challenge the decision of an administrative authority. 21. The petitioners state that in January 1996, they began receiving notarized letters from the company in which they were invited to take part in a voluntary retirement program. They say that these letters indicated that if the proposal involving their resignation was not accepted, the stipulations of Decree Law No. 26120, Article 7(a) would be applied, in the sense that the company would submit to the Labor Administrative Authority the request for reduction of personal, including the list of workers covered in that request, i.e. those who had not accepted voluntary retirement. This group would only have the right to receive the social benefits dictated by law and would not receive additional benefits. 22. The petitioners allege that on January 30, 1996, the Consolidated Petroleum Workers Union of Peru submitted a communication to the head of the Regional Labor Office of Talara, informing him of the alleged irregularity in the reduction of personnel carried out based on a law that had already been repealed. In addition, the petitioners allege that the Union requested that the Labor Authority inform them if the company had submitted a file requesting permission to carry out the firings and, if so, that it send them a copy of it. The petitioners allege that they received no response. They indicate that on February 8, 1996, the Union again communicated with the Labor Authority to complain that the workers had received dismissal letters, which indicated that on January 29, 1996, the Company had requested permission from the Talara Regional Work Area, and, as a result, since the 5-day period had passed, the dismissals were carried out. The petitioners complained that since no file had been opened by the Labor Authority, and later notified the Union of the same, they had infringed on the workers’ right to defense and due process. 23. They also point out that on February 6, 1996, the Union requested that the decisions ordering the dismissals before the Labor Conflict Prevention and Settlement Office not be applied, arguing violations of the guarantees to due process in the administrative proceeding, especially with regard to the lack of notification of the personnel reduction process to be implemented and infringement of the right to defense given the impossibility of any type of challenge or review of the decision to dismiss the workers in question. The petitioners maintain that the Labor Authority did not reply to this request either. 24. The petitioners point out that Decree Law 26120 established a “special procedure” for personnel reduction that did not observe minimum guarantees for the victims because it did not allow them to know about the procedure used to carry out the dismissals since they were not notified, and because it implied infringement on their right to defense and the power to challenge the dismissal decision because neither did the law provide the possibility of any type of review of the dismissal decision. The application of this law deprived them ab initio of an administrative challenge of their dismissals. The petitioners allege that the fact that there is a special procedure does not exonerate the State from observing due process and minimum guarantees for all people under its jurisdiction. 25. The petitioners also point out that several additional irregularities were committed in the process. The petitioners maintain that they were coerced into submitting resignation letters, and that the workers dismissed included workers who had been victims of industrial accidents and workers in the pre and post natal phases. However, since they were unable to access information on the reduction 6