Also on July 20, 2005, the President of the National Border Council José Vicente Rangel submitted a request to declare inadmissible the amparo on the grounds that the alleged victims should have resorted to the ordinary procedure established in the Organic Labor Procedure Law. He also considered that under the seventh clause of the contracts with the three alleged victims no cause is needed to terminate the contract, "regardless of whether the plaintiffs met or not with the responsibilities that were assigned to them, just by executing that power, as he did under the seventh clause of the contract, was enough"109. 119. On July 20, 2005, a constitutional hearing was held before the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters. As part of that hearing, the alleged victims requested including to the file the recording on a tape of the conversations, the transcript of a radio interview with Feijoo Colomine, as well as the transcript of the conversation between Rocío San Miguel and Ilia Azpúrua; however the Court refused such items as evidence considering that "both the playback of the tape and the transcript of the conversations were obtained without the consent of the alleged counterparts, in this case, citizens Feijoo Colomine and Ilia Apúrua, respectively. In addition, there is no way to be certain that the voices belong to those claimed to be the counterpart. Finally, in the opinion of this court, they are illegal and illegitimate evidence, and therefore they are not admitted to the trial"110. 120. On July 27, 2005 the Fourth Court of First Instance issued a judgment dismissing the amparo on the grounds that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff did not allow to "convincingly establish the causal link between the alleged discriminatory treatment for signing and the decision to terminate the employment relationship"111. In that decision, the court also found that "the respondent brought the documents, already discussed, which confirm that there was a worker whose contract was terminated at the same time as the plaintiffs and had not signed the recall referendum, and of another worker who did sign and yet he is still working for the National Border Council"112. The Commission does not have any evidence corroborating this information. 121. On July 29, 2005 the alleged victims appealed113, arguing among other thing that in the amparo procedure the testimony of victims was not evaluated neither positively nor negatively, therefore incurring in an improper valuation of certain evidence114. On September 9, 2005 the Third Superior Court for Labor Matters of the Labor Circuit Court dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to show that the exercise of the contractual power of the employer constituted a discriminatory practice115. 3. Criminal complaint before the Public Ministry 122. On May 27, 2004 Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña filed a criminal complaint before the Prosecutor General's Office asking to initiate criminal investigations against 109 Annex 47. Letter from the President of the National Border Council to the Judge of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, July 20, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 110 Annex 48. Minute of the Constitutional Court hearing of July 20, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 111 Annex 49, Judgement of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, July 27, 2005. Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 112 Annex 49, Judgement of the Fourth Court of First Instance Judicial Circuit for Labor Matters of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, July 27, 2005. Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. The decision states that during the constitutional public hearing, the respondent provided a certified copy of the notice of termination of the employment contract of the citizen Leoni Lopez on March12, 2004 who did not sign against the President of the Republic. 113 Annex 50. Appeal filed by the alleged victims on July 29, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 114 Annex 51. Grounds of appeal, July 29, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 2006. Annex 52. Judgment of the Third Superior Court for Labor Matters of the Labor Circuit Court of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, September 9, 2005, Annex I of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 115 23