24 65. On January 26, 27 and 28, 2000, the Court received the statements by the witnesses and expert witnesses proposed by the parties in the instant case. The Court hereby proceeds to summarise the relevant parts of such statements. a. Statement by Ramón Lima-Camargo, Vice Minister of the Interior and Justice during the Presidential Administration of Mr. Guillermo Endara-Galimany On November 4 or 5, 1990, the conversations among a group of State workers and the National Government had already failed or were about to fail. Since the petition presented by the Co-ordinating Organisation of State Enterprise Workers Unions was rejected, the workers carried out a demonstration intended to encourage the National Government to renew the negotiation of the petitions. The event coincided with the uprising of colonel Eduardo Herrera-Hassán. Since October, 1990 this colonel had been under detention in a penal facility at Naos and Flamenco Islands, after having been accused of co-ordinating the placing of bombs. On December 4, 1990, approximately at 5 p.m., a helicopter landed at the facility where colonel Herrera-Hassán was being held, whereupon the latter boarded it and headed for the fort of Tinajitas, formerly a fort of the Defence Forces in San Miguelito. The witness was at the central headquarters of the Police approximately since 7 p.m. that day. The Minister of the Interior and the Chief of the National Police were at the Presidency of the Republic at the request of the President. Approximately at 9 p.m. colonel Herrera-Hassán entered with weapons into the central headquarters of the National Police accompanied by special units of the National Police, and forced its occupants to leave. He informed the Minister of the Interior over the radio about such entry. He held interviews with colonel Herrera-Hassán, who expressed he was waiting for some workers. During the interviews held, the above-mentioned colonel Herrera-Hassán gave him a petition, which he later brought to the Presidency of the Republic. On December 5, 1990, after the uprising was brought under control, the Ministry of the Interior and Justice commissioned the Chief of the National Police, Mr. Ibrahim Pak, to carry out an internal investigation of the events. He does not remember any reference, in the Police report, to a possible contact or conversations among the mutineers and the labour leaders. Investigations were conducted at the Prosecutorial Agency concerning the movement headed by colonel Eduardo HerreraHassán. A report was requested of him concerning his performance during the events of December 4 and 5. The Minister of the Interior and Justice was on the Board of Directors of the National Telecommunications Institute (INTEL). He does not know whether the authorities at INTEL carried out any investigation prior to the dismissal of the workers of the institution. The strike scheduled by the workers for December 5 was not declared illegal. Some call it a strike, but for him it was the declaration of a “militant” work stoppage, which consisted of attending the work sites but not to work. At no moment was the work stoppage at the State institutions regarded as cause for the dismissal of the staff members. The President of the Republic felt that they were attempting to replace him, for which reason he ordered the discussion of a draft bill at the Cabinet Council, which was submitted to the Legislative Assembly, and whose purpose was to dismiss some persons who had taken part in the demonstrations that coincided with the military uprising. President Guillermo Endara-Galimany was determined to apply Law 25 even before its enactment, whereby the draft contained a provision that permitted its retroactivity. A constitutional provision establishes that public order and social interest laws may be of a retroactive nature if it is so established in the law itself. The Law 25 draft bill established that it was a public order and social interest law, and it provided for its