Exec. Decr. 72-95-PCM (29 of -95) and rendering this legal provision inapplicable; even less so because said norm results from a regular proceeding.” 53. Second, the parties sent a copy to the Commission of an administrative dispute proceeding initiated by the petitioners before the Second Division of the Superior Court of Piura against the decisions rendered in the personnel reduction process, pursuant to the provisions of Article 148 of the Peruvian Constitution. 17 54. On February 26, 1996, the Second Division declared the complaint based on the provisions of Article 427(6) of the Civil Procedure Code inadmissible. Said article provides that the complaint must be declared inadmissible if the “demand for relief was juristically or physically impossible.” The Division used as reasons for inadmissibility of the motion the fact that the complaint had not been signed by the allegedly injured workers, that it had not been proven that the injured workers were members of the union, and that the decision from the administrative dispute proceeding had not been specified in detail. 55. Lastly, the Commission notes that during March 1996, 82 motions were filed to nullify the dismissals before the Talara Labor Court in which the workers requested reinstatement to their posts arguing that they had been dismissed as an administrative action under the purview of a repealed law. They also alleged that the dismissals were null because they violated the workers’ due process, because they had not been given the procedural remedies or options that the company had mentioned in its collective dismissal request initiated before the Labor Conflict Prevention and Settlement Office and the Labor and Social Promotion Regional Office of Piura. 56. On May 8, 1997, the Sullana Decentralized Mixed Court declared the motion to nullify “without merit” in its role as a court of second instance. The Mixed Court believed that it could not accede to the complainants’ claim, so long as the “reinstatement of employment has been reduced in the neoliberal and free market system to three specific cases: discrimination, unionism, and maternity […] and these reasons have been neither invoked nor proven by the author.” 57. In this regard, the petitioners maintain that on May 28, 1997, the date on which notification was given of the judgment of the Sullana Decentralized Mixed Court, “three members of the Constitutional Court had been dismissed, in a clear violation of the rights enshrined in the American Convention.” Thus, the petitioners allege that “with an incomplete court, whose composition did not guarantee independent and impartial decisions, they decided not to continue their case in national courts because they could not be guaranteed justice in Peru.” They also state that the Executive Decree could not be the object of an actionable complaint of unconstitutionality before the Constitutional Court because it lacked the force of law. 58. With a view toward determining the appropriate procedural means within the Commission’s internal laws, it is necessary to determine first the purpose of the petition submitted for it to hear. The petition is based on the alleged violation of the guarantees to due process and judicial protection of the alleged victims in the personnel reduction process that culminated with their dismissals from the posts they were performing at a state company. As per this point, the Commission deems it relevant to verify whether the matter before it was submitted to domestic courts 17 Article 148 sets forth that “administrative decisions that are final are susceptible to challenge via the administrative dispute process.” 13