48 The State’s arguments 135. The State did not refer to the alleged non-compliance with Article 26 of the Convention. The Court’s findings 136. In this case the common intervenors alleged that the State is responsible for the violation of Article 26 of the Convention, based on the fact that the alleged arbitrary nature of the victims’ dismissal and the failure to reinstate them resulted, among other matters, in the unjust deprivation of their employment and the right to remuneration and other work-related benefits; the interruption of the access to social security of the alleged victims and their dependents; the discontinuation of accumulating years of service, which prevented many of them from obtaining a retirement pension; and also serious effects on their health. However, the purpose of this judgment is not to determine the alleged arbitrary nature of the alleged victims’ dismissals or their non-reinstatement, on which the arguments of the common intervenors are based. The Court has declared that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25 of the Convention, relating to judicial guarantees and judicial protection, in relation to the alleged victims, owing to the lack of certainty about the proceeding they should or could resort to in order to claim the rights they considered violated, and to the existence of normative and practical impediments to an effective access to justice (supra paras. 129 and 132). The Court is aware that the violation of these guarantees necessarily had prejudicial consequences for the alleged victims, to the extent that any dismissal has consequences for the exercise and enjoyment of other rights inherent in labor relations. Such consequences can be considered, when pertinent, in the following chapter on reparations (infra para. 149). X REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) Obligation to Repair The Commission’s arguments 137. The Inter-American Commission alleged, inter alia, that: (a) The beneficiaries of the reparations are those named in the Report on admissibility and merits, and they, in turn, correspond to the persons established in the judgment delivered by the Constitutional Court in this case; (b) Regarding pecuniary damage, the dismissed congressional employees not only ceased receiving their salaries, but also incurred significant expenditure in order to try and obtain due protection and judicial guarantees in the face of the administrative act establishing their dismissal. Therefore, the State should adopt the necessary measures for the alleged victims to receive adequate and opportune reparation