of this, in August 2003, ten of the alleged victims were rehired, 5 as were nine others in August 2004.6 18. The petitioners say that despite the aforementioned acknowledgements of responsibility in the domestic system, the alleged victims did not receive comprehensive reparations for damages. They say that the alleged “rehiring” of 19 of the alleged victims did not produce the necessary legal effects to be considered reparations, since they were engaged as new hires, which did not allow them to recover their labor rights, including total years of service in the position, post, functional level, remuneration, and vacation days for seniority. 19. The petitioners indicate that the State’s attempts to provide reparations to some of the petitioners while the Commission was processing the case in no way affected the Commission’s competence to continue hearing the case. On the contrary, the petitioners maintain that those efforts constitute recognition of the violations. They claim that the State’s opportunity to provide reparations to the alleged victims through its own means was when the alleged victims pursued and exhausted domestic remedies before turning to the Commission. In that regard, the petitioners disputed the State’s allegation that they had available to them the domestic remedies set forth in Law No. 27803. According to the petitioners, “the requirement to exhaust the so-called legal mechanisms provided for under Law No. 27803 before having recourse to an international body is not enforceable because they are not adjudicatory.” 20. According to the latest information presented to the IACHR by the petitioners, the current situation of the 25 alleged victims continuing with the international complaint is as follows: 16 are working at the company, three are deceased,7 two have retired,8 and four have not yet obtained any of the benefits under Law No. 27803.9 21. In view of the foregoing arguments of fact and law, the petitioners requested 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 set forth in Article 1.1 and the obligation to undertake domestic legal measures pursuant to Article 2 of the Convention. B. Position of the State 22. The State did not dispute or deny the arguments of fact and law presented by the petitioners with respect to the dismissals. It focused its responses on the actions taken by the Ministry of Labor and Job Promotion and ENAPU to rehire the workers dismissed irregularly. In that regard, the State says that the petition should 5 Justo Esteban Azcárate Noguera, Alberto Esteban Antonio Chala, Juan Leslie Espinoza Eyzaguirre, Jorge Federico García Farías, Ernesto Meza Vargas, José Ricardo Nolasco Milla, Cecilio Alberto Ríos Rodríguez, Isi Antonia Rosas Meléndez, José Fermín Urcia Cruzado, Ernesto Yovera Álvarez. 6 Gloria Nelida Cahua Ríos, Víctor Acuña Dávila, Antonio Tomás Rodríguez Valdivia, Renzo Torero Lizarbe, Marco Antonio Castro Martínez, Honorato Mayorga Blanco, Rogelio Delgado Quijano, Carlos Alberto Lizarbe Nieto, Cesar Eduardo Bravo Garvich. 7 Abraham Cano Rebaza, Nancy Mac’Gregor Alvis, and Fernando Padilla Cancino. 8 Eduardo Rivadeneyra Alva and José Fermín Urcia, who were hired back in August 2003 and retired on May 10, 2007 because they had turned 70. 9 Gladys María Delgado Arriola, Rufino Ysique Reque, Juan Carlos Marraguera Ayllon, and David Desiglioli Sánchez. 5