86 Council acted unconstitutionally in exercising a duty of the exclusive competence of the Judicial Branch. h) the right to a competent tribunal was eliminated as of the issuance of Law 25, since Executive Branch bodies tried the dismissed workers. The administrative officials acted ultra vires; they usurped jurisdiction and invaded powers of the regular judicial bodies when they determined the liability of the workers and acted as guardians of the interests of the administration, rather than protectors of the workers’ rights. The regular judicial authority established previously in the law is the competent court, the specialised courts being excluded; i) the right to the presumption of innocence, is established in Article 22, paragraph two, of the Constitution of Panama, and in Article 1966 of the Justice Code. Without having set forth and proven the events subject to judgment, and without having proven guilt in a public proceeding with all due guarantees, the State presumed the liability of the petitioners and proceeded to punish them with dismissal from their positions. The workers were unduly punished; the State did not presume their innocence, nor did it offer them a fair trial. In the dismissal notes the national work stoppage was associated with the military uprising, and the State presumed that the workers had taken part in the organisation of actions that attempted against the democratic government and the constitutional order. 117. As to Article 25 of the Convention, the Commission argued that a) the 270 workers were deprived of their right to an effective recourse, not only when the Supreme Court rejected the Law 25 unconstitutionality action, but also when the Third Section of said Supreme Court rejected seven administrative conflicts actions brought against the dismissals; b) the administrative judicial recourse was ineffective. The actions brought by the workers were rejected by means of arguments that led to such result; c) despite the fact that the workers filed remedies with the Third Administrative Conflicts Section of the Supreme Court to obtain a judicial remedy for their protection, the rejection thereof left them unprotected; d) ineffectiveness and denial of the right to petition constitute one of the reasons why the events were denounced before the Commission; e) when the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional one paragraph of Law 25, it caused the validity of the rest of such law to be questioned since, if the entity that made the selection, determined the liabilities and applied the dismissal sanction of the State employees acted unconstitutionally, its acts were absolutely null and void, and the rest of Law 25 remained inapplicable because it referred to the dismissal action. The violation of Article 25(2)(c) of the Convention was proven when the unconstitutionality remedy filed against Law 25 was declared partially well founded. If the legal rules are derogated when found to be unconstitutional, the jurisdictional actions performed on the basis of such rules must be declared null and void; and