113. On August 17, 2004 the Delegate Defender of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas decided to archive the complaint by stating that is was not proven that the administration acted with abuse of power, on the contrary, it was only evidenced that they made use of their contractual right to terminate the contracts pursuant to the seventh clause of the contract99. 2. Action for constitutional amparo before the labor courts 114. On July 22, 2004 the alleged victims filed a constitutional amparo before the labor courts against the National Border Council arguing that they were the subject of employment discrimination by being dismissed as retaliation for signing the petition for the presidential recall referendum100. 115. On August 4, 2004 the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters declared itself incompetent to hear the amparo claim, considering that it would correspond to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court to examine the case, since the President of the National Border Council also served at the time as Minister of Foreign Affairs, therefore he’s as a senior official as provided in Article 8 of the Organic Law on Protection of Rights and Constitutional Guarantees101. 116. On November 23, 2004 the alleged victims filed a brief before the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court requesting that the Constitutional Court ruled on the amparo, because there was still not a decision on the declination of jurisdiction after 104 days had passed102. That request was repeated on February 3, 2005103, on May 3, 2005104, and on May 11, 2005105. 117. On 26 May 2005, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court issued a ruling stating that it does not accept declination of jurisdiction of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas because the case under study is a relationship of employeremployee nature, therefore the examination of the matter rests within the labor courts106. Under this, on June 17, 2005 the Fourth Court of First Instance admitted the amparo107. 118. On 20 July 2005, the Public Prosecutor issued his opinion regarding the amparo, requesting that it be declared inadmissible, as the amparo was not the adequate remedy for proving whether a dismissal is justified or not, he also asked for the amparo to be dismissed as there was still an ongoing investigation by the Public Prosecutor, and because the alleged victims had not proven the alleged political discrimination108. 99 Annex 37. Closing Act, August17, 2004. Annex III of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 100 Annex 38. Constitutional amparo claim, July 22, 2004, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 101 Anexo 39. Resolution of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters declaring itself incompetent to hear the constitutional amparo complaint, August 4, 2004. Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 102 Annex 40. Request to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, November 23, 2004, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 103 Annex 41. Request to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, February 3, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 104 Annex 42. Request to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, May 3, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 105 Annex 43. Request to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, May 11, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 106 Annex 44. Judgment of the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court stating that it does not accept the declination of jurisdiction of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, May 26, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 107 Annex 45, Decision of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, June 17, 2005. Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 108 Annex 46. Written opinion of the Prosecutor requesting the dismissal of the constitutional amparo complaint, July 20, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 22