43 characterization of violations of Articles 24 and 25.”180 In paragraph 15 of the Admissibility Report, the Commission indicated that: “The petitioner believed that his right to due process enshrined in Article 8 of the American Convention was violated in connection with Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the right to work, the right to equality before the law, and the right to judicial protection. The petitioner likewise indicates that, according to Article 39 of the Amparo Law, in conjunction with Article 303 of the Constitution, his constitutional rights were violated. l. The brief of APRODEH, on behalf of Mr. Lagos del Campo, dated March 16, 2011, addressed to the Commission’s Executive Secretary and received on March 24, 2011, indicated that it presented observations on the Admissibility Report. In the part with requests, it asked “[t]hat, based on these conclusions, the State be required: (a) to facilitate the conditions for Alfredo Lagos del Campo to be able to take the necessary steps to recover the use and enjoyment of his labor rights, lost as a result of his dismissal […].”181 134. Based on all the above, this Court has verified that, starting with the first communications he sent to the Commission, the petitioner requested protection of his rights “to a fair trial (due process) and the right to work.” Also, the State indicated expressly that, in the petition he lodged before the Commission, Mr. Lagos del Campo requested “immediate reinstatement in his job at CEPER-PIRELLI, with the corresponding salary and benefits.” 135. The Court points out that although the Commission noted this request in its Admissibility Report (supra, para. 133 (k)), it failed to rule on the alleged right to work and its possible admissibility. The Court also notes that, from the early stage, the State was aware of this claim by the presumed victim (supra, para. 133(i)), which is also evident in the factual framework presented by the Commission. 136. In this regard, the State expressly indicated before the Court that: “The whole dispute [is] centered on Mr. Lagos del Campo’s dismissal by Ceper-Pirelli, because he committed an offense that was established in article 5(a) and (h) of Law No. 24514 – the law that regulates the right to job security” (merits file, folio 224). During the public hearing, the State considered that the case related to a context in which the “labor laws were highly protective of the worker,” because “they provided a legal means of absolute protection of the workers’ job security.” 137. Consequently, the Court notes that the facts corresponding to the dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo have constantly been aired before the domestic judicial instances, 182 and also in the proceedings before the inter-American system183 (supra, para. 133). Moreover, the argument on the right to work was repeatedly substantiated by the petitioner as of the initial procedural stages before the Commission. In this regard, the parties have had abundant possibilities of referring to the scope of the rights involved in the facts analyzed.184 Admissibility Report No. 152/10 adopted on November 1, 2010 (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, ff. 776 and 784). 180 Brief of APRODEH on behalf of Mr. Lagos del Campo of March 16, 2011 (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, f. 703). 181 His complaint before the Labor Court reveals the labor dispute. In his petition, he indicated that “since the unfair and unjustified nature of the dismissal is well-known […], [he] ask[ed] the court […] to order the suspension of the dismissal and [his] reinstatement in [his] usual job” (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, f. 27). 182 In particular, the Court underlines that, in his first communication addressed to the Inter-American Commission on October 13, 1993, the petitioner stated, among other matters, that his “right to job security indicated in article 48 of the Constitution and articles 27 and 26 of the proposed new constitution” had been violated. Initial petition lodged before the IACHR (evidence file, procedure before the IACHR, f. 439). 183 Cf. Case of Godínez Cruz v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of January 20, 1989. Series C No. 5, para. 172, and Case of the Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay. Merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of March 29, 2006. Series C No. 146, para. 186. 184