relocation; ii) early retirement; ii) financial compensation and iv) job training and job re-conversion. 29. According to the State, in compliance with the law, the Executive Commission and the Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion proceeded to examine and publish lists of former employees who had been irregularly dismissed. According to the information supplied, lists were allegedly published in the Official Gazette ´El Peruano” on three occasions: the first list on December 22, 2002; the second list, December 27, 2003; and the third list, October 2, 2004. The State contends that the administrative avenue was exhausted with the third list; in other words, that neither the Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion nor the Executive Commission would have the authority to decide the cases of former employees who were not included on any of those lists. According to the State, those persons who believed themselves to have been wronged by these measures had the power to bring legal actions to challenge the administrative action created by the Executive Commission and formalized by the Ministry of Labor and Employment Promotion. The State alleges that the challenge could be made either through a constitutional process of “amparo” or an adversarial administrative proceeding. 30. In this regard, the State argues that under Article 44 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure, the time period for lodging the application seeking amparo relief is 60 working days from the date of harm, provided the aggrieved party had knowledge of the act that inflicted the harm and would be able to file the complaint. Thus, as the Third List was published on October 2, 2004, all those dissatisfied with the process could have availed themselves of the remedy within the legal time period. As for the filing of an adversarial administrative action, the State alleges that the petitioners had the opportunity to exhaust this remedy within the time period allowed by the law regulating the adversarial-administrative process. According to the State, under that law the time period that a complainant has to challenge a measure is three months from the date he learned or was notified of the measure being challenged. 31. Regarding this specific case, the State contends that the petitioners opted for the procedures established for all irregularly dismissed workers. Those procedures were conducted in complete observance of the principle of legality, equality before the law and the guarantees of due process. In one of the initial stages of the process before the IACHR, the State alleged that a review of the lists of dismissed employees who have gained some benefit makes it clear that of the employees reinstated at the Ministry of the Economy and Finance, five are petitioners in the current case: Lucio Chávez Quiñones, Segundo Gilberto León Barturén, César González Montero, Atiliano Hidalgo Meza and Eduardo Bernardo Colán Vargas. 32. Subsequently, the State specified the circumstances of the alleged victims of the case, indicating that Mr. Lucio Chávez Quiñones and other petitioners filed adversarial administrative action against the Ministry of Economy and Finance before the Labor Chamber of the Lima Superior Court and that said court declared their request inadmissible on the 5th of October 2001. As a result of the petitioners failure to file an appeal to challenge the decision the court allegedly declared the ruling final, resulting in the case’s retirement. 33. The State notes that Mr. Lucio Chávez Quiñones and Segundo León Barturén were inscribed on the National List of Irregularly Dismissed Employees and that they chose the option of reinstatement. Regarding the situation of Mr. Eduardo 6