12 54. Likewise, according to the Venezuelan State, there was no violation of the right to freedom of association (Article 16 of the Convention), because the exercise of that right on a subject of such great national consequence as a referendum on a presidential recall, must be duly regulated. In support of this claim, the State argued that on September 25, 2003, the CNE issued the “Guidelines Regulating Processes of Recall Referenda of the Terms in Office of Popularly Elected Positions,” which ensures compliance of the State with the obligation to the democratic exercise of the will of the people. The State asserted that several different referenda processes carried out in Venezuela are of public knowledge and are widely known internationally, in which the participation of the citizenry, the CNE and the authorities of the State was evident. 55. With regard to the violation of the right to participate in government (Article 23 of the Convention), as alleged by the petitioners, the State contended that this right was not violated. According to the State, the complainants did not provide adequate and legally sound evidence to prove that they were the targets of political pressure to not exercise their political rights. In this regard, they contended that the rescission of a labor contract is not regarded in Venezuelan law as a sanction. They further asserted that the complainants can hardly contend that the State has infringed ‘their right to have equal access to public service,’ since as can be surmised from the very complaint filed by them, the settlement of a labor contract dispute was involved, in which the alleged victims lacked the status of public officials. It argued that there is nothing on record to prove that these citizens have ever taken part in a competitive process to apply for positions in the civil service and, therefore, the State could not have violated a right that has not been exercised by the complainants. 56. Concerning the violation of the right to equal protection enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention, as alleged by the petitioners, the State contended that the complainants can not allege the job security in public employment enjoyed by public officials, inasmuch as according to the State, the alleged victims were workers whose working conditions were regulated under the Organic Labor Law and it further explained that the status of public servant emanates from the legal designation in the Law of the Public Service Statute. The State argued that the alleged victims were aware of this situation and that for this reason the amparo proceeding brought by them for constitutional relief was filed before a labor court and not before the administrative court for matters of public servants, which would be in charge settling disputes pertaining to public officials. 57. As for the violation of the right to judicial protection (Article 25 of the Convention) alleged by the petitioners, the State argued that the fact that the amparo claim for constitutional relief was found groundless did not mean that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Convention, because despite the existence of the ordinary labor procedure before the labor courts, the amparo claim, an action of a special nature, was admitted and processed in keeping with the law. According to the State, the judge who heard the case, based on the standard of free and reasoned judgment (sana crítica) examined the evidence introduced by the parties and ruled pursuant to the law. Additionally, the State believed that the alleged victims had a suitable remedy available to them in the labor courts, but they chose to pursue the least suitable remedy of the amparo claim for constitutional relief as a mechanism to gain access “baselessly to international institutions of justice in the area of Human Rights.”