29 constitutional, but it was unable to express such an opinion publicly, since the Attorney General was in a very difficult situation as Head of the Prosecutorial Agency, and because of the fact that said complaint had been referred to another attorney’s office. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) established that Law 25 violated Agreements 87 and 98. When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the “paragraph” of Article 2 of Law 25, the law was no longer necessary since it had been applied to its full extent. There was a discrediting campaign against him, which resulted in a penal proceeding that made it unconstitutionally possible for the Attorney of the Administration to suspend him on December 24, 1992. The Supreme Court convicted him for abuse of authority, but in the same judgment it suspended its effects. It was not desired for him to go to prison; it was, however, desired that he leave his position since he did not enjoy the political favour of t he Government. d. Statement of Nilsa Chung-de-González, Penal Circuit Judge from February 1990 to June 1999 According to the Constitution and the Penal Procedural Code, the office of the Attorney General of the Nation is responsible for the investigation of offences against the security and integrity of the State. As a judge, it was her responsibility to determine the legal merits of the investigation of the penal proceedings against colonel Eduardo Herrera-Hassán, because of the takeover of the Public Force fort at Tinajitas and the central headquarters of the National Police. The record was received in the office in July 1992, and “was characterised by means of a mixed proceeding with orders to hold a trial and to grant a provisional acquittal on March 15, 1993.” Former members of the military became bound by the proceedings carried out on the occasion of the alleged coup d’état. As a judge, she had the power to order the Prosecutorial Agency to extend the summary proceedings in order to establish whether persons other than those investigated had participated, but she did not exercise such powers since she felt there were no merits. The Panamanian administration of justice ruled out that the events of December 4 and 5, whose leading role was played by colonel Herrera-Hassán, constituted the offence of rebellion. She agreed with the criteria of the Ninth Prosecutor’s department, whereby these acts constituted the offence of sedition. In the year 1995 the National Government issued a decree whereby all those “subject to prosecution” in the proceedings, with the exception of Mr. Eliécer Bernal, were pardoned. e. Statement of Manrique Mejía, assessment expert of the Procurement Department of the Water Resources and Electric Power Institute (IRHE) from 1977 to December 1990 From 1986 to 1990 he had permanent permission as a labour union leader. In 1990 he participated in the Co-ordinating Organisation of State Enterprise Workers Unions, as a member of the Board of Directors of the IRHE labour union. On October 16, 1990, said Co-ordinating Organisation submitted to the Presidency of the Republic a request for: non-privatisation of State enterprises; non-reform of the law on the Social Security Administration; payment of bonuses and the thirteenth bonus month; halting of dismissals of the leaders of State enterprises; and welcoming of the claims of the students of the National Institute and of those displaced by the war of Chorrillo. On November 16, 1990, the Government informed that it had decided to reject the petition of the Co-ordinating Organisation of State Enterprise Workers Unions. On November 17, 1990, said Co-ordinating Organisation agreed to organise a march on December 4, 1990, and a 24-hour work stoppage the following day, in