"even if it had been that way (if it had been confirmed that the reason for the termination of the contract was voting in the recall referendum) neither such allegations constitute offenses” 125, but since the alleged facts do constitute crimes, and if it wasn’t corroborate that the reason for the termination of contracts was the participation in the recall referendum, it was precisely because the prosecution did not develop a proper investigation126. 126. On April 28, 2005 the Thirty-Seventh Prosecuting Attorney requested the members of the Court of Appeal to dismiss the appeal considering that "the trial record show that the measures taken by those interested in the subject was limited to a contractually established relationship and has nothing that intervenes in criminal law (...)"127. 127. On May 5, 2005 the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeal admitted the appeal filed128, and on May 12, 2005 that same Chamber dismissed the appeal stating that "it is impossible to demand of the Public Ministry (owner of the criminal action by excellence), to present a different final action other than the one already exercised (dismissal of this case) (...) “129. 128. On July 7, 2005 the alleged victims filed an appeal remedy (casación) against the decision which dismissed the appeal, alleging a series of violations of the right to due process and infringement and misinterpretation of the law130. 129. On 27 September 2005 the Chamber of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal brought by the victims of the case on the grounds that the appellants "failed to demonstrate the usefulness of the appeal remedy (casación) and did not express their arguments clearly"131. V. LEGAL ANALYSIS 130. Based on the arguments of the parties and the proven facts, the Commission will decide first whether the creation of the "Tascón list" and its dissemination are itself violations of the American Convention. Secondly, the Commission will examine whether the dismissal of the alleged victims constituted a violation of political rights, freedom of expression and the principle of equality and non-discrimination. Third, the Commission shall determine whether the processes initiated internally constituted an effective remedy to protect them judicially against the dismissal. Finally, the Commission will refer to the allegations of the petitioners regarding the violation of the right to personal integrity. Consequently, the Commission will conduct its legal analysis referring first to political rights, freedom of expression and to the principle of equality and non-discrimination in the context of the dismissal. Second, the Commission will refer to the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. 125 Annex 59, Appeal against the decision of dismissal, April 15, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 126 Anexo 59. Appeal against the decision of dismissal, April 15, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 7, 2006. 127 Annex 60. Response of the Thirty-Seventh Prosecuting Attorney on the appeal against the decision of dismissal, April 28, 2005,Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 128 Annex 61. Admissibility of the appeal by the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, May 5, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 129 Annex 62. Decision of the Seventh Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, which dismisses the appeal, May 12, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 130 Annex 63. Appeal remedy (casación) filed by Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña before the Chamber of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Court, July 7, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 131 Annex 64. Judgment of the Chamber of Criminal Appeals of the Supreme Court that dismisses the Appeal remedy (casasión), September 27, 2005, Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 25