C. Conclusion 90. In accordance with the foregoing paragraphs, the Court finds that the State is responsible for the violation of the rights to be heard, to have prior and detailed notification of the charges made, and to have adequate time and means to prepare a defense, contained in Articles 8(1), 8(2)(b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights contained in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary listed in the Single Annex. With respect to the possibility of challenging the declaration of illegality of the strike, this Court considers that the State is responsible for the violation of the right to judicial protection, contained in Article 25 of the Convention, in relation to the obligation to respect and guarantee rights and the duty to adopt provisions of domestic law contained in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary listed in the Single Annex. VII-2 RIGHTS TO STRIKE, TO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, FREEDOM TO ORGANIZE AND THE RIGHT TO WORK IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 103 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 91. The Commission recalled that the right to strike is protected under Article 26 of the Convention, and is expressly recognized in Article 45 (c) of the OAS Charter. It added that Article 26, interpreted within the framework of Article 29, in light of Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention, imposes immediately enforceable obligations to respect and guarantee rights, to apply nondiscrimination, to adopt measures to ensure the enjoyment of these rights and to provide suitable and effective remedies for their protection. 92. At the time of the facts, according to Article 241 (c) of the Labor Code, for a strike to be declared legal, at least two-thirds of the total number of workers of the Judiciary had to participate. The Commission pointed out that this requirement was contrary to ILO Convention 87 on freedom of association, and this had already been emphasized by the ILO Committee of Experts. 104 Indeed, in assessing the proportionality of this restriction on the right to strike, the Commission considered that, whereas the requirement for a prior vote by workers to hold a strike may serve a legitimate purpose and is a suitable measure, the requirement to have the support of two-thirds of the workers constitutes an excessive restriction on the right to strike that that could be understood as rendering it, in practice, ineffective. Thus, it considered that this requirement did not comply with the principle of proportionality. 93. The Commission also considered that the direct consequence of declaring the strike illegal was the collective dismissal of the workers. Therefore, taking into account that in the view of the Commission the State violated the right to strike, and that the corresponding authorities based the dismissals on the fact that the strike was carried out, there are also sufficient elements to declare the violation of the right to work of those employees who were dismissed and were not rehired. 103 Article 26 of the Convention in relation to Articles 16, 1(1) and 2 thereof. Cf. Observation (CEACR) adopted in 1989, published in 76th ILO session (1989), Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87). 104 28