149. The petitioners argued that the real motivation of the termination their contracts was the political opinion of Rocio San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña, expressed through in the recall referendum of the President of the Republic. 150. In contrast within the framework of internal processes, CNF authorities who showed up said that the termination was merely the application of the seventh clause of the contract, which allows for discretional dismissal without motivation. In a radio interview, the Executive Secretary of the CNF said that the three alleged victims were dismissed by order of the Vice President as a result of a restructuring. In the same vein, the authorities that were in charge of deciding the various remedies assumed this version to be true, limiting themselves to declare that the termination of the work relationship was the exercise of discretional powers under the text of the contract. In the amparo process it was concluded that "the plaintiffs have not shown that the performance of the contractual power of the employer constituted a discriminatory practice"151. In the criminal proceedings, the Twenty-First Court of First Instance dismissed the process by holding that "none of the elements lead to corroborate the complainants statements that the reason for the determination of the contract was voting in the recall referendum"152. During the Inter-American proceedings, the State maintained the same version on the exercise of the discretional power that the own contract allowed as motivation for its own termination. 151. Given the argument of the petitioners according to which the real motivation of the contract termination with the alleged victims was to punish them for their political expression in the petition for referendum, the analysis of the Commission cannot be based solely on the motivation formally declared in the preceding paragraphs. It is up to the Commission to evaluate all available evidence to determine whether the termination was a misuse of power, understood as the use of formally valid procedures to conceal an illegal practice153. The IACHR has stated that in these cases circumstantial or presumptive evidence is of especial importance154. 152. The Commission will now summarize the different elements that it has in its possession to determine whether the dismissal of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña, was motivated by the political opinions of Rocio San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón and Thais Coromoto Peña and was therefore a misuse of power concealed in the motive argued by the State according to which the termination of the contracts with the alleged victims was the application of a provision of the contract or part of a restructuring process. 153. First, the Commission notes that the process of creation and publication of the Tascón List, constitutes, per se, a reflection on the lack of safeguards during the recall referendum of the President of the Republic, in order to guarantee the “free expression of the will of the voters” in the terms of article 23.1 b) of the Convention. This article seeks to protect persons against forms of pressure and reprisals within electoral processes. The Commission understands that these guarantees are applicable to the processes of recall referendums of positions elected by popular vote. The Commission recognizes that the process of collecting signatures to hold a recall referendum, by its own procedure of collecting signatures, cannot guarantee the anonymity of the expression of the voters. However, this does not mean that the identity of the people who signed the petition for a recall referendum is public information. While the State must investigate any 151 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. 152 Annex 58. Resolution dismissal of the case of Control Court 21 of the Criminal Judicial Circuit of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas, April 4, 2004. Annex II of the complaint filed before the IACHR on March 7, 2006. 153IACHR. Application filed before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) (Case 12.489) against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, November 2, 2006, para. 128. 154IACHR. Application filed before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, in the case of Ana María Ruggeri Cova, Perkins Rocha Contreras and Juan Carlos Apitz (“First Court of Administrative Disputes”) (Case 12.489) against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, November 2, 2006, para. 129. 30