9 38. Additionally, the petitioners claimed that the facts at issue reflect a clear example of political discrimination, in violation of the principle of equality set forth in Article 1.1 of the Convention and the democratic principles upon which it is founded. Moreover, the petitioners noted that publishing the so-called “Tascón List” made those who signed the petition for the recall referendum be exposed to hatred and public scorn and the persons appearing on the list as signers became the targets of a variety of forms of retaliation, such as being prevented from gaining access to public facilities, termination of their labor contracts with the civil service, obstacles to obtaining identity cards, as well as publication of their names on signs at public office and being branded as “traitors to the nation.” 39. The petitioners claimed that in the context of Article 26 of the Convention, the principle of equality and non-discrimination plays a fundamental role in safeguarding the human rights of workers. In the view of the petitioners, the State has the obligation to respect and ensure the labor-related human rights of all workers and not tolerate situations of discrimination to their detriment, both when the State is the employer as well as when a third party is involved. In this regard, they contended that the alleged victims were just three of thousands of people who lost their jobs in the civil service for signing the petition for a recall referendum. 40. In conclusion, the petitioners alleged that the State has violated Articles 5, 8, 13, 16, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1, 2 and 29 of said instrument, to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña. Accordingly, they requested the IACHR to take the necessary measures to restore the infringed rights and other measures of reparation as deemed appropriate. B. Position of the State 41. The State alleged that the petition is inadmissible on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies. It argued that the remedies used by the alleged victims were not the suitable. In this regard, it asserted that the special appeal for constitutional relief (amparo constitucional), within the Venezuelan domestic legal system, constitutes a prompt and effective tool for the restoration of infringed rights “when no brief, summary and effective procedural means exists [that is] equivalent to constitutional protection.” In the judgment of the State, in the instant case, a expeditious, simple and effective remedy existed, which is capable of restoring the infringed legal right: a claim before the regular labor courts for unlawful dismissal. 42. In addressing the petition process to gather signatures for convening the recall referendum of the President of the Republic, the State explained that the process requires the signatures of at least twenty per cent of all voters, as set forth in Article 72 of the Constitution of that country. Accordingly, the CNE examined the signatures it had received and challenged some of them citing irregularities. According to the State, this is what led the CNE to create the database questioned by the petitioners, which was intended to be a citizens’ instrument to help verify whether or not signatures had been fraudulently included in the petition. 43. The State explained that on March 2, 2004, the CNE issued rules to regulate the challenge process in order to verify the legitimacy of the signatures and that this process was to take place on April 20, 2004. The State contends that the signature verification day was actually held on June 27, 2004, and that because the signature of Rocío San Miguel was one of the ones that had been challenged for alleged irregularities, the labor contract of Rocío San Miguel could not have been decided on the