petitioners submitted additional information. On August 13, 2007, the IACHR informed the parties that, as of that date, its involvement in trying to reach a friendly settlement agreement had concluded. Also on that date, the Commission asked the State to provide any comments it deemed appropriate, within one month. 8. In communications dated September 18 and October 3, 2007, the petitioners submitted additional information, for which the IACHR acknowledged receipt and transmitted a copy to the State for its file. 9. In a communication dated January 7, 2008 the petitioners requested that the IACHR convene a hearing on the referenced petition during the Commission’s 131st period of sessions. In a communication dated February 15, 2008, the IACHR informed the petitioners that due to the large number of hearings requested it would not be possible, for the moment, to grant the requested hearing. III. A. POSITION OF THE PARTIES Position of the petitioners 10. The petition said that the 28 initial and 25 current alleged victims were former workers at Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (ENAPU) who were dismissed under a special program to promote private investment that was based on a legal norm that was not in effect at the time it was applied. The petitioners indicated that this irregular dismissal procedure violated their right to due process and denied them ab initio the opportunity to challenge that measure administratively. The petitioners allege that, having appealed to domestic courts, they did not obtain any type of judicial protection, because the administrative and judicial authorities’ lacked independence and impartiality. 11. Specifically, the petitioners allege that on November 23, 1992, the Executive Branch, under then-President Alberto Fujimori, issued Decree-Law No. 26120, amending the Law to Promote Private Investment in State-owned Companies.3 Article 7 of that decree authorized, with the agreement of the Privatization Commission and via Supreme Decree, that all measures be taken for economic, financial, legal, and administrative restructuring—including streamlining staffing—at the companies involved in the private investment promotion process set forth in the Law to Promote Private Investment in State-owned Companies. According to the petitioners, that law violated the workers’ right of defense and right to equal protection because the dismissals made under that decree failed to implement the legal norms on collective dismissals set forth in the Job Training and Promotion Act. 4 12. Subsequently, on July 18, 1995, the petitioners claimed that Law No. 26513 was passed, amending the Job Training and Promotion Act, specifically to create a new procedure to regulate collective dismissals. They maintain that with this amendment the provisions of Decree-Law No. 26120 were tacitly repealed, since Law No. 26513 stated that “any other provisions contradicting this law” were repealed. 13. According to the petitioners, even though Decree-Law No. 26120 had already been repealed, on January 19, 1996 the Executive Branch issued Supreme Decree 003-96-PCM authorizing ENAPU’s Board of Directors to implement a plan to 3 Legislative Decree No. 674. 4 Legislative Decree No. 728 3