85 X VIOLATION OF ARTICLES 8(1), 8(2) AND 25 RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION Arguments of the Commission 116. Concerning Article 8 of the Convention, the Commission argued that: a) it is not possible to construe the due process as being limited to judicial actions; it must be guaranteed in all proceedings or actions of the State that may affect the rights and interests of individuals; b) there is an identity between the principles that inspire penal law and those that inspire punitive administrative law, since both rights are expressions of the State’s punitive power; c) in the exercise of discretional powers, the administration must act according to legality and the general principles of rationality, reasonableness, and proportionality, permitting those who are the objects of administrative actions to exercise their right to defence; d) disciplinary sanctions can be applied legally only by the competent administrative authority, as a result of an administrative procedure that respects Article 8 of the Convention; e) no administrative procedure was implemented before the determination was made to proceed with the dismissals, and the latter were arbitrary because they were made without respect for the basic guarantees. The Supreme Court, in its May 23, 1991, judgment, pointed out that the public employees separated from the service were subject to discretional appointment and dismissal, and that the authority with competence to dismiss them was the same authority that appointed them; f) as to the right to be heard, the claim of the petitioners was never heard by the authorities of the State, who proceeded to dismiss them massively, based on the mere identification by the head of the State entity, who was not capable of certifying either the participation of the employee in the work stoppage, or her or his attendance at work. Law 25 created a special summary procedure to regulate the sanction of massive dismissal of the State workers, thus harming their right to defence. This right must be respected in both, judicial, and administrative proceedings. g) concerning the right to appear before a judge or an independent and impartial tribunal, the allegedly unlawful action –participation in an armed movement intended to topple the constitutional government- was not brought to the knowledge of a judge or an independent and impartial tribunal to ensure its establishment with all due guarantees. The cases were arbitrarily submitted to procedures and bodies established a posteriori by Law 25. The claims were taken into consideration and resolved by officials under the Executive Branch, not under the labour jurisdiction, as to dismissals, or under the penal jurisdiction, as to alleged offences, which were the competent and impartial jurisdictional bodies. This violation was confirmed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of May 23, 1991, which declared that the Cabinet