93 140. Since Law 25 was considered constitutional and it derogated the rules in force at the time of the events, from its having a retroactive effect, the workers had to bring administrative conflicts actions before the Third Section of the Supreme Court. During these proceedings, the workers did not have broad possibilities to be heard in the search for clarification of the events. In order to determine that the dismissals were legal, the Third Section based itself exclusively on the fact that it had been declared that Law 25 was not unconstitutional and that the workers had participated in the work stoppage contrary to democracy and the constitutional order. Nor did the Third Section analyse the real circumstances of the cases or whether or not the dismissed workers had committed the acts for which they were being punished. Thus, it did not take into consideration the reports on which the directors of the different institutions based themselves to determine the participation of the workers in the work stoppage, such reports not being even accounted for, according to the evidence submitted, in the internal records. In handing down a judgment on the basis of Law 25, the Third Section did not take into consideration that such Law did not establish which actions attempted against democracy and the constitutional order. Thus, in charging the workers with participation in an interruption of activities that attempted against democracy and the constitutional order, they were being found guilty without having had the possibility, at the time of the work stoppage, to know that their participation in the latter was cause for such a severe sanction as dismissal. The attitude of the Third Section is still more serious when taking into consideration that it was not possible to appeal its decisions, by virtue of the fact that its judgments were final and unappealable. 141. The State did not provide elements on the cases of all the workers, and it may be concluded, on the basis of those which it did provide, that the internal recourses were ineffective in relationship to Article 25 of the Convention. It is thus evidenced that the courts did not observe the due process of law, or the right to an effective recourse. As already expressed, the recourses attempted were not appropriate to solve the problem of the dismissal of the workers. 142. There is no indication, in the entirety of the evidence in the instant case, that all the workers would have filed unconstitutionality remedies, constitutional guarantee protection remedies, and administrative conflict actions. However, the State did not provide individualised information or analysed separately the cases of alleged victims; nor did it contest or place in doubt the fact that several of these persons filed the alleged remedies, but it simply submitted arguments on the group of 270 workers who appeared as alleged victims in the instant case. 143. Based on the aforesaid and, particularly, on the silence of the State concerning specific cases, the Court concludes that the State violated Articles 8(1), 8(2), and 25 of the American Convention, to the detriment of the 270 workers listed in paragraph 4 of this Judgment. XI ARTICLE 15 RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY Arguments of the Commission 144. Concerning Article 15 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: