procedures, whether by administrative and/or ordinary jurisdictional means, due to its broadness it is not only possible to restore the right, but also its declaration, modification and even its extension; […] THIRD: That, taking into account the claim of the plaintiffs, consisting of their reinstatement to their workplace, recognizing their work rights; and since it concerns an action of guarantee on disputed facts that attempts to discern whether the evaluation that took place in the Congress with the consequent dismissal of the appellants emanated from the rule of law, it must be concluded that this constitutional procedure […] because it lacks an evidentiary stage it is not the appropriate action to clarify this claim because whenever evidence is necessary, which the parties should provide as is their right in a broader judicial procedure in order to create certainty in the judge, with respect to the reclamation of the orders, making this action insignificant, especially if the plaintiffs have not presented concrete and sufficient evidence to accredit the violation of the invoked constitutional rights; in any event, the plaintiffs may assert it using the corresponding ordinary means.56 81. This decision was appealed to the Fifth Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima, which confirmed the decision on June 18, 2002. The Chamber held that the plaintiffs were contesting the results of the process of evaluation and qualification of personnel and that a writ of amparo was not the appropriate remedy because it does not have an evidentiary stage.57 This decision was appealed to the Constitutional Court, which on December 6, 2002, confirmed the decision and declared the writ of amparo inadmissible58 since it was not possible to restore the status quo ante of the dismissals: Given that in promulgating the Constitution of 1993, the organic structure of the Congress and, therefore, its Allocation of Personnel Table varied substantially, it is not possible, by means of amparo, to restore the status quo ante and, therefore, the matter is irreparable […]. For these reasons, the Constitutional Court, in the use of the attributions conferred upon it by the Constitution of Peru and its Organic Law, CONFIRMS the appeal and, in confirming the appeal, declares the writ of amparo INADMISSIBLE.59 82. With respect to the alleged victims who lodged Petition 728-00, there is no information on the judicial or administrative proceedings that have been initiated to contest their dismissals domestically. VIII MERITS 83. This case concerns alleged violations of Articles 8(1), 25(1) and 26 of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of 164 employees who had been dismissed from their employment during the government of Alberto Fujimori and who had been barred from filing judicial remedies regarding their dismissals. In accordance with the allegations of the parties and of the Commission, the Court will proceed to examine: (1) the rights to judicial protection and to judicial guarantees; (2) the right to work and (3) political rights. VIII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION AND TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES IN 56 Decision of the Second Specialized Court of Public Law of September 10, 2001. File 2972-01. Writ of Amparo (evidence file, fs. 2443 to 2445). 57 Cf. Resolution 11 of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima of June 18, 2002 (evidence file, f. 13). Cf. Decision of the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court of December 6, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 330 to 334). 58 Cf. Decision of the Second Chamber of the Constitutional Court of December 6, 2002 (evidence file, fs. 332 to 333). 59 23