the officials who carried their dismissal116, as this was an act of retaliation for signing the petition for the presidential recall referendum117. They reported that their dismissal was signed by the then President of the National Border Council José Vicente Rangel Vale, and that the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council told them that their dismissals were due to the gesture of distrust in which they had incurred by signing the petition for a presidential recall referendum118. 123. On July 7, 2004, the Office of the Thirty-Seventh Prosecuting Attorney ordered the launch of the criminal investigation119 . On July 14, 2004 the Prosecutor interviewed the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council, Feijoo Colomine Rincones120. On the same date the Executive Secretary presented a report to the Prosecutor 37 of the Public Ministry121. On July 15, Rocío San Miguel, and Thais Coromoto Peña gave their statements, and on July 16 Magally Chang Girón made her statement122. 124. On January 21, 2005 the Thirty-Seventh Prosecuting Attorney requested the dismissal of the case to a trial judge, considering that the facts were not criminal in nature and noting that it could not be established the violation of a constitutional right as these were contractually established relationships, and as stipulated in the seventh clause of the contract signed by the plaintiffs the right to terminate the contract was reserved to the contractor123. On April 4, 2005 the Twenty-First Judge of First Instance acting as Control Court ordered the dismissal of the case considering that, None of the clauses evidence that rules of criminal nature were violated, and although it is evident that the President of the National Border Council decided to terminate the procurement of services, the fact remains that this was allowed by the contract signed between the parties, in observing that none of the reported elements lead to corroborate the plaintiffs claim that the reason for the termination of the contract was the fact they voted in the recall referendum, and that if it were so, those facts are not criminal offenses, as the rules invoked as violating (sic) constitutional rights, are not punishable acts, and in any case, the disagreements arising as a result of a contractual relationship are not within the jurisdiction of this court, since the plaintiffs could pursue their claim in other administrative or labor jurisdiction, for the purpose of ensuring their right to work, as criminal proceedings are not the ideal proceedings for their claim124. 125. On April 15, 2005, Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña appealed against the decision to dismiss the case, arguing that the decision erred in law in concluding that 116 Annex 53. Criminal complaint filed before the Attorney General's Office, May 27, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 117 Annex 53. Criminal complaint filed before the Attorney General's Office, May 27, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 118 Annex 53. Criminal complaint filed before the Attorney General's Office, May 27, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 119 Annex 54. Communication that orders the launch of the criminal investigation regarding the complaint filed by Rocío San Miguel, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Peña, May 27. 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 120 Annex 29. Transcript of the interview with Feijoo Colomine Rincones, July 14, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 121 Annex 55. Report of the Executive Secretary of the National Border Council, July 14, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 122 7, 2006. Annex 56. Testimony of the alleged victims, July 15 and 16, 2004, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 123 Annex 57, Request for dismissal of the case to the Judge of First Instance acting as Control Court of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 124 Annex 58, Resolution dismissal of the case of Control Court 21 of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, April 4, 2004. Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 24