72 “paragraph” of Article 2, based on the argument that in unconstitutionality actions the Full Supreme Court must limit itself to “declare whether a legal rule is constitutional or not,” and therefore the Court did not pronounce itself on the specific situation of the dismissed workers. Said decision is final, definitive, and binding and does not have a retroactive effect;48 aa. later, the workers filed full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions with the Third Section of the Supreme Court, which declared that the dismissals were legal on the basis of Law 25. The judgments were final, definitive and binding. In none of the proceedings was evidence submitted intended to prove that the dismissed workers had participated in actions against democracy and the constitutional order;49 48 cfr. testimony of Manrique Mejía delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Luis Antonio Batista-Juárez delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Carlos Lucas López-Tejada delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; report of the expert Feliciano Olmedo Sanjur-Gordillo delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; note CSJ-SNG-354-94 of October 3, 1994, from the Vice President Justice in charge of the Presidency of the Supreme Court of Panama, addressed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Panama; Report of the Labour Law Committee of the National Bar Association sent on November 22, 1993, to the President of the National Bar Association; March 9, 1992 reply to the full-jurisdiction action brought before the Third Section of the Supreme Court by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio et al.; judgment of the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of June 21, 1993, in connection with the actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio, Jaime Salinas-M., Giovanni E. Prado-S., Tomás A. Pretelt, Rubén D. Pérez-G., Sergio OchoaCastro, Sildee Ríos-de-Silva, Dorindo A. Ríos, Alidio Rivera, Sandra C. de-Romero, Ernesto RomeroAcosta, Isaac M.-Rodríguez, Fredys Pérez-M., Dony Arcesa Ramos-Quintero, Ricardo R. Ríos, Luis G. Risco-B., Ilka de-Sánchez, José Santamaría, Luis Arturo Sánchez, Enigno Saldaña, Teresa R. de-Sierra, Manuel Enrique Valencia, Christian Eliécer Pérez, Rodolfo G. Vence-R., Marisina del C. Ubillus-D., Rafael Tait-Yepes, Víctor Julio Soto, Cristobal Segundo Jr., Elvira A. de-Solórzano, Enrique C. Sellhom-M., Rodolfo A. Wyter , Ricardo A. Trujillo-R., Luis Olmedo-Sosa-C., Sonia de-Smith, and Damiel S. Trejos-G.; opinion of March 21, 1991 by the Office of the Administrative Attorney of the Prosecutorial Agency, concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24, 1990, by Vicente ArchiboldBlake, in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al.; and by Basilio ChongGómez, in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990; jurisprudence of the Full Supreme Court concerning Article 2564 of the Judicial Code of the Republic of Panama; judgment of the Full Supreme Court of May 23, 1991, concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought December 21 and 24 by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al.; and by Basilio Chong-Gómez in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990; judgment of the Third Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of June 30, 1993, in connection with the actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Luis Anaya, Juan Bautista Quijada, Cayetano Cruz, and Jaime Camarena; volume I of the record of the case before the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court, concerning the full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Luis Anaya, Juan Bautista Quijada-B., Cayetano Cruz, and Jaime E. Camarena; record of the case before the Full Supreme Court concerning the three unconstitutionality actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake, in representation of Isaac Rodríguez; by Santander Tristán-Donoso et al; and by Basilio Chong-Gómez, in representation of Rolando Miller et al., against Law 25 of December 14, 1990. 49 cfr. testimony of Manrique Mejía delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Luis Antonio Batista-Juárez delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 26, 2000; testimony of Carlos Lucas López-Tejada delivered before the Inter-American Court on January 27, 2000; March 9, 1992 reply to the full-jurisdiction action brought before the Third Section of the Supreme Court by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio et al.; judgment of the Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of June 21, 1993, in connection with the actions brought by Vicente Archibold-Blake in representation of Miguel Angel Osorio et al.; warning of unconstitutionality of Law 25 of December 14, 1990, filed May 7, 1991, before the Third Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court of Panama, by Carlos del Cid in representation of Eduardo Cobos; full-jurisdiction administrative conflicts action brought before the Third Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court (without a date) by Ricardo Stevens, in representation of Ricardo Gregorio Rivera; resolution of the Third Administrative Conflicts Section, of September 24, 1991, in connection with the appeal filed by Ricardo Stevens, in representation of Ricardo Gregorio Rivera, against the proceedings of May 29, 1991;