16 Testimonies proposed by the common intervenors a) Ricardo Julio Callirgos Tarazona, alleged victim On his dismissal from the Congress of the Republic he had no other source of income for the upkeep of his household. His dismissal occurred “in the context of the disruption of the rule of law,” and “[his] dismissal is characterized by its [alleged] illegality”; in addition, the right of the dismissed employees to have access to an amparo remedy (recourse for the protection of constitutional rights) was allegedly suspended. He resorted to the administrative proceeding and, when he had exhausted this, he had recourse to judicial proceedings, subsequently addressing himself to the InterAmerican Commission. Since his dismissal, he “has been unable to recover his former standard of living[, and had] to resort to different jobs that allowed him to survive, […] all of this without any work benefits.” Up until he was dismissed, he “enjoyed job security, social security, and the probability of a pension.” His family was prejudiced owing to “the lack of adequate nutrition, [because he] did not have the money to maintain them and [his] family’s life project was changed totally, [because] when the State dismissed [him,] it took away not only his job, but the possibility of physical and spiritual development[. The State eliminated his children’s] possibility of a more appropriate education. “[His] wife had a stroke as a result of the penury they endured.” Currently, he is working temporarily as a maintenance and cleaning assistant in a dentistry clinic. He has not lost “hope of recovering [his] employment” and “trusts that the Court […] can end these 14 years of financial and moral frustration […].” He hopes to “recover [his] job [and for] financial reparation for the damage caused.” b) Margarita Agustina Álvarez Chavarri widow of Purizaca (wife of José Humberto Purizaca Arambulo), deceased alleged victim Her husband was the only source of maintenance for their household. She described the actions taken by her husband to contest his dismissal, first through administrative and then judicial channels, including the Constitutional Court. When her husband was dismissed “he obtained temporary work, but it was badly paid […, which prejudiced his health [and he required] a heart valve transplant owing to aortic insufficiency.” Since her husband no longer had social security, he was unable to have the operation and, in 1999, four years after receiving the diagnosis of his illness, he died of a heart attack. Her husband “was depressed; at times he wanted to die of despair” and, when he died, she “had to resort to friends” for financial aid in order to bury him. Her schoolage children had to go out to work, “because the family did not have enough money; […] at times there was not enough food; there was no money to pay for electricity or water. […They felt] frustrated and powerless.” Her children could not continue their schooling.