7 by an independent and impartial tribunal, within a reasonable period of time and under the due process rights afforded by the Convention. 29. As for the criminal complaint brought by the alleged victims, the petitioners contended that the Office of the Public Prosecutor failed to take the necessary measures in the investigation in order to uncover the truth of the incidents. In particular, they contended that no on-site inspection visit was conducted of the incidents nor were any staff members assigned to the National Border Council ever interviewed. They further claimed that the decision to dismiss the case took place “behind the backs of the [alleged] victims.” In this regard, the petitioners argued that the Control Court did not summon the parties to the oral hearing that was held to receive their arguments on the motion for dismissal of the case filed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor, as required by Venezuelan legislation. They asserted that they appealed to the Chamber for Appeals on Criminal Matters of the Supreme Court of Justice (TSJ), to order the case to be reheard, because a hearing on the dismissal had not be conducted. Nonetheless, even though it has been a consistent legal precedent of the Supreme Court to order the retrial or rehearing of such matters, and has even done so ex officio, in criminal proceedings where the victim has not been notified or an oral hearing on dismissal has not been held, the appeal was denied. 30. As for the alleged violation of freedom of thought and expression (Article 13 of the Convention), the petitioners argued that the alleged victims were dismissed as punishment for expressing their political opinion by signing the petition for the recall referendum and, in so doing, their own opinion on the performance of the Venezuelan government. The petitioners also believed that the aforementioned punishment has a chilling effect on other citizens who, in order to not risk a similar punishment, preferred to keep quiet and refrain from expressing a critical opinion. The petitioners contended that the “Tascón List” was intended to frighten those who signed, which amounts to a constraint on freedom of expression through stigmatization and loss of other rights, such as the right to work. They stressed that there must be a wide margin of tolerance for statements about public officials, when matters of public interest are involved and that it is essential for freedom of expression to be protected and ensured in the political debate in the lead up to elections of state authorities. 31. Concerning the right to association (Article 16 of the Convention), the petitioners noted that a transitory association of citizens with a legitimate purpose materialized among everyone who sought to overturn the term in office of the President of the Republic, which could not be interfered with by the state. The petitioners contended that terminating the alleged victims from their jobs is a consequence of having exercised their freedom of association and, consequently, those who organized for a legitimate purpose were penalized. 32. With regard to the alleged violation of the right to participate in government (Article 23 of the Convention), the petitioners claimed that the alleged victims were the target of pressure to not exercise their political right to participate in the process of convening a recall referendum on the president’s term in office, and that their subsequent dismissal from their job amounted to a punishment for exercising their political right to participate in said signature petition process. The petitioners also alleged that when the list of people who signed the petition to call for the referendum was made public, the right to vote by secret ballot, as provided for by Article 23.1 of the Convention, was infringed, in connection with Article 29.c of the same instrument, inasmuch as the political rights enshrined in the Convention must not be interpreted in such a way so as to exclude the right to participate in processes of referenda or, in those processes, to not respect secrecy of the expression of political will in order to guarantee the free expression of the will of the citizens.