4 16. Additionally, the petitioners claimed that on March 20, 2004, the Ministry of Health suggested that “To sign against Chavez is an act of terrorism” and that “A traitor can not be in positions of trust and that however many people as may be necessary, those that have signed, are out.” The petitioners further contended that on March 29, 2004, the Ministry of Foreign Relations announced to the media: “it found it logical that an official holding a position of trust that has signed against Hugo Chavez makes his or her position available [to others]; otherwise, he or she will be transferred to other duties within the ministry of foreign relations. He or she will not be dismissed, but will no longer be able to be a close collaborator.” In this regard, they noted that during March 2004, there were many complaints of political discrimination reported by the media. 17. The petitioners argued that, precisely in this particular context, Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña were advised of the decision of the Chairman of the National Border Council to terminate their labor contract with said institution. According to the petitioners, of the 22 individuals who were employed at the National Border Council at that time, the only ones who appeared on the list that was released to the public by congressman Tascón as signers of the recall referendum petition on the term of office of the President of the Republic were Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña and Jorge Guerra Navarro and that those four persons were notified of early termination of their employment. 18. The petitioners asserted that the written dismissal notification did not state the reason for the action. They claimed, however, that at the time they were served the written notice, the Executive Secretary of the institution orally informed the alleged victims separately that their dismissals were the consequence of signing the petition for the recall of the term of office of the President of the Republic. The petitioners alleged that the offer was made to Mrs. Thais Coromoto Peña that the measure would be vacated in exchange for disavowing her signature on the day of challenge called by the National Electoral Council. They also contended that the dismissal of Mr. Guerra Navarro did not actually occur because he accepted the pledge to not validate his signature before the election authorities. 19. The petitioners alleged that on April 20, 2004, the Chairman of the CNE announced that more than one million signatures would undergo the process of challenge, noting that during the “day of challenge,” in addition to the validation of signatures, the signatures of any of the signers of the petition, who may have changed their minds, could be retracted. This day of challenge was convened by the CNE and was held on June 27, 2004. The petitioners noted that Rocío San Miguel, whose signature had been challenged, validated her signature on that occasion. They added that the actual presidential term recall referendum was held on August 15, 2004, as announced by the CNE, and that Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña participated in it. 20. The petitioners alleged that the referendum was followed by retaliation of those who signed and that, particularly, “at the end of 2004, Mrs. Rocío San Miguel was also expelled from the Advanced Air Force Academy and the Advanced Naval War School, where she had been serving as a professor.” Furthermore, her husband, an active-duty officer of the Navy, had not been assigned to any position in his unit since August 18, 2004 as of the date of submission of the instant claim by the petitioners.