measures and the voluntary acceptance of the petitioners in the case, they have consented to the measures adopted by the State to provide a domestic solution to complaints resulting from the collective dismissal. The petitioners allege that even if several of them registered in the National Registry of Former Public Sector Workers Irregularly Dismissed, and even if five had accepted the benefits that the cited legislation had granted, the benefits received were less than their claims for reparation and therefore the matter is still not considered resolved. 73. The petitioners specifically maintain that even if to date three petitioners have accepted the benefit of early retirement and two others have accepted the benefit of reincorporation, none of them have received in integrum reparation for the violations of which they have been victims. First, the petitioners allege that the primary object of the petition has not been rectified, i.e. reinstatement to the post they were performing under the same work and salary conditions with no discontinuity and therefore recognition of seniority. Second, the petitioners allege that none of these five people have received from the State any financial compensation for the damages of which they have been victims as a result of the events that allegedly violated their rights. 74. The Commission, having established that the program of benefits established for the fired workers do not prevent its hearing the matter, in this case shall follow the doctrine established by the Inter-American Court in the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees v. Peru. In said judgment the Court found that “determination of the effects of some of the alleged victims having returned to work in the institution from which they had allegedly been dismissed, and also the validity of their claims for reinstatement, correspond to considerations that belong to the stages on merits and, possibly, reparations.”26 In this sense, the Commission shall reserve analysis of the measures alleged by the State for the corresponding merits phase. The Commission, during its respective merits phase shall study, in accordance with the evidentiary material brought by the parties, the consequences and effects that could have been caused or determined from the alleged collection of social benefits by some of the petitioners. 75. As a result, the Commission considers that the facts alleged by the petitioners regarding dismissal from the posts they performed at the company Petróleos del Perú, PETROPERU S.A through application of an administrative process that infringed on due process and especially since they were not allowed to exercise their right to defense via an administrative challenge of their dismissals, as well as the lack of effective judicial remedy, could characterize prima facie a violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, all with regard to the obligations arising from Articles 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention. 76. The Commission also finds that the petitioners did not substantiate autonomous facts that could constitute violations of the right to equal protection set forth in Article 24 of the Convention. Likewise, the IACHR considers that the petitioners did not submit sufficient elements of evidence to prove prima facie infringement upon the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws set forth in Article 9 of the Convention. Thus, the Commission declares these rights inadmissible. 26 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al). Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 70. 17