26 morning, approximately, and others returned later. Their return to work was done gradually. Nearly at noon, INTEL was working again at its normal pace. He did not learn about the reasons for the interruption of the work stoppage, nor did he have any knowledge of a decision by the workers union to suspend it. Some of the workers who went back to work informed the heads of the work sites, that the union’s leadership had instructed them to do so. During the time that the work stoppage lasted at INTEL, the essential services were maintained operational. While persuasion efforts were being made to urge the workers on the stoppage to go back to work, the management at INTEL was monitoring the development of colonel Herrera-Hassán’s movement. He did not know whether the workers were also monitoring said movement. There was no proof at INTEL that would lead to the presumption that there was a connection between the workers’ movement and that of colonel Herrera-Hassán; at that time the instructions of the President of the Republic were complied with, which were transmitted either directly or through members of his Cabinet. In response to the work stoppage of December 5, 1990, the State took certain measures, including the enactment of Law 25. Law 25 had a two-pronged effect: it suspended the application of some special laws that established the labour system of some State enterprises, such as INTEL among others, and it provided for a declaration of non subsistence for those workers who would have participated in the promotion, organisation, convocation or implementation of the actions that took place December 4 and 5, 1990. Within the framework of INTEL, the instructions for the application of said Law were issued by the Presidency of the Republic. The workers who were involved in the actions alleged as per Law 25 were identified and, through a resolution of the office of the Manager of Human Resources, a declaration of non-subsistence of the workers’ appointments was made, the workers having been informed with respect thereto through a note. The identification that those who were responsible had was given on their own perception at the work sites he visited, and in those sites to which he had no access, it was developed through the information provided by the respective managers. He does not remember whether tests that would be compared against the contents of the reports were requested or performed. The only means that the workers had to question such reports before the office of the Director of INTEL were those remedies that Law 25 provided for, which were the reconsideration and the appeal remedies. The reconsideration remedies were dealt with in the first place by the administrative entity that ordered the dismissal, that is, the office of the Manager of Human Resources, and were later dealt with by him directly, whereby the governmental recourse became exhausted. The reconsideration remedy was a very simple one, and it was presented in written form on plain paper. In the case of INTEL it was not subject to any formality at all, and it was received, analysed and decided on by the officer who ordered the dismissal. It had to be finalised through a resolution of the competent administrative department, whereby the employee was notified with respect thereto. The administrative procedure to which the INTEL staff members were subject prior to December 4, 1990, for the application of sanctions relative to discipline and dismissal was based on Law 8 of 1975, which applied both, to the National Telecommunications Institute, and the Water Resources and Electric Power Institute. According to this procedure, the worker was notified about charges which the management felt warranted some type of sanction, and this was discussed in the first instance at a Company Committee, which transmitted the matter to the Workers Union. Law 8 followed along the same lines as the Labour Code, with some additions. He does not know whether Law 25 facilitated the dismissal process since it envisioned a legal system that was different to the system that applied to INTEL workers prior to December 4, but it certainly created a different dismissal system. He does not remember whether Law 25 established the possibility to appear before a