B.2.2. Remedies filed to challenge the dismissals 86. In response to an act of dismissal, under domestic legislation the former employees could have filed an ordinary labor proceeding, a motion for amparo or a motion for reconsideration. With regard to the latter, the State itself explained that this remedy is not specifically contemplated in the Labor Code, but is commonly used and accepted by virtue of the provisions of Article 15 of said Code. 98 87. With respect to the 65 alleged victims in this case, the Commission noted that 49 of them filed some type of appeal against the act of dismissal. However, the case file only contains evidence of the appeals filed by 14 persons (supra para. 53). The Commission itself indicated that, in at least four cases, the worker voluntarily did not file any appeal. 99 Likewise, the decisions of the pertinent authorities are not available in all cases. Consequently, this Court does not have sufficient information to assess the effectiveness of these remedies, and will therefore not rule on this aspect of the Commission’s allegations. 88. The STOJ also filed a collective motion for amparo before the Constitutional Court, which was rejected on February 29, 2000.100In this case, the appeal judges examined the challenged ruling and concluded that due process had not been violated. 101 In response to this conclusion, the STOJ filed a motion for clarification, which was rejected in a ruling on March 10, 2000. 102 All these rulings were reasoned and allowed the STOJ to present arguments against the dismissals. The negative outcome of these does not necessarily imply that the State has failed in its duty to guarantee an effective remedy. In the Court’s opinion, the conclusions reached by the appeal judges are not manifestly arbitrary or unreasonable; furthermore, as indicated in the preceding paragraphs, the analysis of the effectiveness of the remedies does not depend on an eventual decision in favor of the interests of the alleged victims. 89. Therefore, on this point, given the lack of evidence regarding the appeals for reconsideration and the existence of reasoned decisions in the amparo proceeding followed by the STOJ, the Court considers that the State of Guatemala did not violate the right to judicial protection of the 65 former employees of the Judiciary. According to this article “Cases not contemplated by this Code, by its regulations or by the other labor laws, must be resolved, firstly, in accordance with the principles of Labor Law; secondly, in accordance with equity, custom or local usage in harmony with said principles, and, finally, in accordance with the principles and provisions of Common Law.” 98 99 These are the cases of the workers Freddy Eduardo Ávila Rodríguez, Manuel Armando García Avendaño, Marvin Manolo López Reyna and Genaro Orellana (folios 6 to 11). 100 Cf. Judgment of the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Appeals in the context of case No. 84199 of February 29, 2000 (evidence file, folios 362 ff.). 101 In fact, the Constitutional Court considered that, “On the basis of the examination of the background, it was established that the authority being challenged took the decision to dismiss several of its employees, including members of the Executive Committee of the Workers Union, because, as the appointing authority it was required to implement what had been decided by the Labor Chamber which heard the case […] which declared that the action being promoted by the Union was unlawful. Since that ruling was a final ruling and, on that basis, had fully established the cause for dismissal, it was unnecessary to file preliminary proceedings of dismissal or hold a regular trial to determine the contracts according to the case, because the power to terminate labor relationships had already been granted by the competent judicial authority. It had ruled that the strike was unlawful and as a result concluded that the consequence of that action was the dismissal of the striking employees, the only limitation being that it should be previously administratively proven that they had gone on strike […] Because its course of action is to abide by the provisions of the final court ruling, this Court considers that it has respected court proceedings and is not violating the constitution at all.” (Judgment of the Constitutional Court acting as a Special Court of Appeals in the context of file No. 841-99 on February 29, 2000, evidence file, folio 365). 102 621). Cf. Ruling of the Constitutional Court in the context of file No. 841-99 of March 10, 2000 (evidence file, folio 27