44. In accordance with Article 48(b) of the Convention, the IACHR shall determine “whether the grounds for the petition or communication still exist” before examining the merits of the case. Thus, the legal question at hand is whether the petitioners’ acceptance of the measures offered by the State changed the complaint originally lodged with the Commission to such an extent that the grounds that gave rise to it no longer exist. 45. The petitioners’ initial complaint mentioned the State’s alleged international responsibility for violating the right to due process, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, and the right to judicial protection for the illegal dismissal of 25 individuals. The subsequent events deal with a number of measures taken by the State to provide reparations for the damages to the former workers who were dismissed irregularly, including 19 petitioners in this case. The State alleges that, as a result of application of these measures and 19 petitioners’ voluntary acceptance thereof, the latter had accepted the measures taken by the State to resolve domestically the complaints stemming from the collective dismissal. The petitioners, in turn, allege that although several of them registered with the National Registry of Former Public Sectors Workers who were Dismissed Irregularly, and several of them even collected the benefits offered under the aforementioned legislation, several dismissed workers did not receive any reparations, and they consider that what the State offered did not fulfill its obligation. 46. In that regard, once the Commission had established that the facts that had come to light did not alter its understanding of the matter, in this case it will follow the doctrine of the Inter-American Court in the Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru. In that decision, the Court found that: in international proceedings, a decision on the effect of one or more of the victims returning (or not) to work at the same institution from which they were allegedly dismissed, as well as the basis of their claims for reinstatement to their jobs, was part of the merit phase, and potentially the reparations phase.”18 In that regard, the Commission will set aside analysis of the measures alleged by the State until the merits phase. 47. Thus, the Commission considers that the events alleged by the petitioners regarding their dismissal from their jobs at Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (ENAPU) through an administrative process that did not allow them to exercise their right of defense to challenge their dismissal, as well as the lack of effective judicial remedies could, prima facie, characterize a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, with respect to the obligations stemming from Articles 1.1 and 2 of the Convention.19 48. The Commission finds that the petitioners did not substantiate autonomous acts that could constitute violations to the right to equal protection established in Article 24 of the Convention. Moreover, it considers that the petitioners did not present sufficient evidence to prove, prima facie, a violation of the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws established in Article 9 of the Convention. The Commission therefore declares inadmissible the complaint regarding those rights. 18 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 70. 19 Cfr. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado - Alfaro et al.). Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 129 et seq. See also: I/A Court H.R., Baena Ricardo et al. Case. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, paras. 124 and 125. I/A Court H.R., Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 118. 10