its analysis of the measures adopted by the State until its examination of the merits of the case. 58. The Commission will analyze the claims made in relation to the alleged violation of the rights of due process and judicial protection during the merits stage. The IACHR considers it pertinent to highlight that failing to protect these rights could implicate State responsibility, therefore resulting in an obligation to adopt reparatory measures. To this end, the existence of a process to review appeals made by workers dismissed in the 90’s wouldn’t be, as alleged by the petitioners, irrelevant. It is relevant inasmuch as it would affect the current situation of the petitioners, and as a means of understanding what measures it might be necessary that the State adopt in order to repair the damage that some or all of the petitioners have suffered. As a result, the Commission will review the compensation program established subsequent to the dismissals and whether it would have comprised a fair and independent revision of the appeals lodged by the petitioners, and if it would have taken into account their individual circumstances. This analysis would occur at the merits stage, and would have to take into consideration that, according to the available information, the majority of the victims consider their complaints to be unresolved. 59. The Commission thus considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners concerning their dismissal from the jobs they performed in the Ministry of the Economy and Finance through use of an administrative procedure in which the guarantees of due process and any effective judicial recourse were lacking, could tend prima facie to establish a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the American Convention.7 60. In conclusion, the Commission finds that the facts denounced could tend to establish, prima facie, violations of rights protected by the Convention. It therefore concludes that the facts denounced, if proven, could establish violations of the rights protected by Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, both in relation to the general obligations to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights and to adopt domestic legislative measures, undertaken in Articles 1(1) and 2 of that international instrument. It is therefore declaring the petition admissible with respect to those facts. V. CONCLUSIONS 61. The Commission concludes that the case is admissible and that it is competent to examine the petition lodged by the petitioners concerning alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, as it satisfies the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. 62. Based on the arguments of fact and of law expressed above and without prejudging the merits of the case, THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS 7 Cf. I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees. (Aguado-Alfraro et al.). Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 129 et seq. See also: I/A Court H.R., Case of Baena Ricardo et al. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, pars.. 124 and 125; Case of Claude Reyes et al. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, par. 118. 12