had not participated in the strike. Moreover, according to the statements of one of the alleged victims, this notification was not even made in person. 84 74. The State claimed that the workers had the opportunity to be heard both in the proceeding declaring the strike illegal and through the remedies that they could have attempted against the order for their dismissal (supra paras. 59 to 61). However, with regard to the procedure for declaring a strike unlawful, it should be emphasized that this is not a process that allows for an analysis of the personal situation of each of the workers or of their possible participation or not in the strike. With respect to the appeals against the order of dismissal, the guarantee analyzed in this chapter implies a prior procedure that allows the worker to present evidence in his defense before a decision on his dismissal is taken. Thus, this Court agrees with the Commission in considering that the argument claiming that a prior procedure with the guarantees of due process was not necessary, because the reason for dismissal was already provided for in the applicable law and was a direct consequence of the declaration of illegality of the strike, is not a reason to deprive workers of the possibility of defending themselves as to whether or not they were involved in the strike and whether or not it should entail a sanction. 85 75. It is clear from the records of the Supreme Court of Justice that the specific situation of each worker was not taken into account and that, despite the fact that the First Chamber of the Labor and Social Welfare Appeals Court itself warned of the need to correct the lists, these were not reviewed, which implied including workers who had not participated in the strike, as evidenced by the rehiring of at least 28 of the original petitioners (supra para. 53). Thus, having implemented the dismissals by means of an order that did not take into account the individual situation of each worker, the employer - in this case the Supreme Court of Justice- did not guarantee due process to the workers, whereby they could present evidence and exercise their right to defense, prior to dismissal. 76. Consequently, this Court considers that the State, by dismissing the 65 former employees of the Judiciary without affording them a prior proceeding in which they could hear the charges against them and submit evidence of not having participated in the strike, thereby exercising their right of defense, did not respect the judicial guarantees established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) (b) and 8(2)(c) of the American Convention. B.2. Judicial protection 77. This Court recalls that Article 25 of the Convention establishes the obligation of States Parties to guarantee, to all persons under their jurisdiction, a simple, prompt and effective judicial remedy before a competent judge or court, against acts that violate their fundamental rights. 86 Thus, Articles 8, 25 and 1 of the Convention are interrelated to the extent that “[…] effective judicial remedies […] must be substantiated in accordance with the rules of due process of law, 84 In his statement, Orlan Manuel Morales Pineda indicated that he was never legally notified of his dismissal (Statement rendered by affidavit by Orlan Morales Pineda of June 19, 2021, evidence file, folio 3750). This argument was also included in the dissenting opinion of Judge Amado González Benítez in the judgment of February 29, 2000, issued by the Constitutional Court in response to a motion for amparo presented by the STOJ (dissenting opinion of Judge Amado González Benítez, judgment of February 29, 2000, file 841-99, evidence file, folios 379 and 380). 85 86 Cf. Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 5, 2011, Series C No. 228, para. 95, and Case of Cuya Lavy et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 170. 24