3 f) the 270 dismissed workers presented their claims in accordance with the laws in force; however, these claims were processed under the procedure created by Law 25, under the argument that the former laws had been annulled or partially modified. III PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION 3. On February 22, 1994, the Secretariat of the Commission received a petition from the Panamanian Human Rights Committee on behalf of 270 public employees dismissed as a consequence of Law 25 of December 14, 1990. On July 6, 1994, the Commission informed the State of the petition and requested it to present the corresponding information within 90 days. 4. On July 24 and October 19, 1994, the Commission sent the State additional information presented by the complainant and, in the latter communication, requested it to adopt the pertinent measures to present all its reports within 60 days. 5. On September 9, 1994, Panama presented its reply to the Commission, which forwarded it to the complainant on October 25, 1994, and on January 24, 1995, the complainant presented its observations to this document, which were forwarded to the State on January 31, 1995. 6. On February 14, 1995, the State presented its observations to the additional information that the Commission had forwarded on October 19, 1994, and on March 1, 1995, the Commission forwarded them to complainant. 7. On April 7, 1995, the Commission made itself available to the parties in order to reach a friendly settlement. Although both the State and the petitioners informed the Commission that they were interested in reaching a friendly settlement, after almost three years during which three meetings were held to try and reach a settlement, “the Commission considered that the action for settlement had been exhausted and initiated the legal proceeding”. 8. On October 16, 1997, during its 97th session, the Commission approved Report No. 37/97, which was forwarded to the State on October 17, 1997. In this report, the Commission concluded: 148. That the acts of the State public authorities by which the Legislative Assembly adopted Law 25 of December 14, 1990, the Judiciary declared that it was almost completely constitutional and the Executive applied it and on the basis of which the human rights of the petitioners were violated and all their claims were rejected are incompatible with the provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights. 149. That, with regard to the 270 persons in whose name this case has been filed, the State of Panama has failed to comply with its obligations under the following provisions of the American Convention on Human Rights: Article 8 (Right to a Fair Trial), Article 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), Article 10 (Right to Compensation), Article 15 (Right of Assembly), Article 16 (Freedom of Association)), Article 24 (Right to Equal Protection), and Article 25 (Right to Judicial Protection). 150. That, with regard to these same persons, the State of Panama has failed to comply with its obligation to recognize and guarantee the rights contained in Articles 8 and 25, in relation to Article 1.1 and 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, to which Panama is a State Party.