6 both, the content, and the application of Law 25 were proportionate to the damage being caused to the organisation of social life in Panama, and to the democratic institutions of the country. It also indicated that the violation of rights alleged by the petitioners was not real. It added that Law 25 was passed in full consonance with the provisions of Articles 27, 30 and 32 of the Convention, and the precepts of the Court’s jurisprudence. Lastly, it pointed out that all rules and requirements established by the Convention were complied with in the internal proceedings interposed by the petitioners; that it was proven that the actions carried out were consistent with the law, international law and the Convention, and that international liability attributable to Panama had not been proven. In its reply, the State requested the Court to declare that it was not liable for the dismissal of the 270 workers; that because of the failure to prove the violation by Panama of any rule of the Convention, it should not be obliged to pay any type of compensation, nor to reinstate the workers dismissed, especially in view of the fact that some of them had been reinstated, and termination pay and compensation was paid to others pursuant to the law; that it be allowed to present further evidence, and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay legal fees and expenditures incurred. 22. On July 7, 1998, the Secretariat requested the Commission to deliver, within the shortest possible time, a description of the purpose of the deposition by the witnesses proposed by the Commission, since such information was not included in the application. 23. On July 14, 1998, the Commission informed the Court that it felt that the performance of other actions pertinent to the written procedure was of the utmost importance, to which effect it requested the granting of an additional two months to submit the reply. 24. On July 31, 1998, the Secretariat informed the Commission and the State that, pursuant to Article 38 of the Rules of Procedure, the President granted the former a term of two months for the submission of the reply and that, after the receipt of said brief, it would transmit it to the latter in order that it, within the same time frame, submit the answer to the reply. 25. On August 31, 1998, the Commission submitted the description of the objective of the statement by the witnesses offered in its application. 26. On September 30, 1998, the Commission submitted the brief with the reply. 27. On October 29, 1998, the Secretariat, pursuant to instructions issued by the President, requested the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (hereinafter the “OAS”), to furnish it with any information that would be available on any notification received from the State between November 20 and December 31, 1990, concerning the suspension of guarantees of the Convention, the provisions suspended, the reasons for the suspension, and the date of termination of such suspension. 28. On November 27, 1998, the State requested an extension of one month to submit its answer to the reply. On December 2, 1998, pursuant to instructions issued by the President, the Secretariat informed the State that the extension had been granted.