6 for political purposes, abuso of power and conspiracy. On May 12, 2005, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of the case, on the grounds that the facts under investigation were not punishable offenses. On July 7, 2005, the complainants filed an appeal to the Supreme Court to overturn the decision to dismiss, which was denied by the TSJ on September 27, 2005. 24. The petitioners also argued that the alleged victims reported the incidents that are the subject of the petition on May 27, 2004, to the Office of the People’s Ombudsman. According to the account of the petitioners, the complaint was lost by this Office and after resubmitting the documents, this office officially opened a case on June 29, 2004. On August 7, that same year, the Office of the People’s Ombudsman officially closed the investigation into the complaint, terminating the processing of the case file and ordering it to be archived. 25. Additionally, the petitioners noted that on July 22, 2004, the alleged victims filed an appeal for constitutional relief through an amparo proceeding with the Fourth Trial Court for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas. Said appeal was admitted and subsequently was found to be groundless on the merits on July 27, 2005. The petitioners appealed said decision, but on September 9, 2005, the Third Superior Court for Labor Matters of the Labor Circuit Court of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas upheld the trial court judgment. 26. As to the alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention, the petitioners assert that the Venezuelan State subjected the alleged victims to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, by punishing them for exercising a legitimate right, which deprived them of their livelihood, stigmatized them in the eyes of the rest of society, and that the State continued to harass them in public. In the judgment of the petitioners, the treatment received by the alleged victims upset their spiritual and family life, leading to deep-seeded feelings of frustration and severely affecting their life plans and ambitions. 27. As to the alleged violation of their right to a fair trial (Article 8 of the Convention), the petitioners contended, first and foremost, that the dismissal of the alleged victims from their positions of employment was in actuality an administrative sanction, inasmuch as they were unable to exercise their rights. In the view of the petitioners, if the State was charging the alleged victims with having committed an offense, it had the duty to properly serve notice of the charges to them, bring the evidence against them to their attention and to hear their defense, in keeping with the legal precedents of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. 28. Secondly, the petitioners alleged that both the criminal proceeding and the amparo proceeding for constitutional relief were marred by many irregularities and that the State did not fulfill the minimum standard of the duty to investigate this type of complaint, which must be performed earnestly and not as a simple formality predestined to failure. In particular, the petitioners asserted that, in the proceeding to seek constitutional relief through amparo, the alleged victims were not heard prison term of six months to one year […] 12. In instances of public officials or members of the National Armed Forces, the punishment shall be doubled.” Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/LOSPP.htm 3 Law against Corruption published in Official Gazette Special Issue N° 5.637 dated April 07, 2003. Article 68 of said law prescribes: “any public official who, in abusing his duties, uses his position to favor or prejudice, a candidate, group, party or political movement in an election, shall be punished with a prison term of one to three years.” Available at: http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/mesicic3_ven_anexo16.pdf