legal provision that was applicable to them was the terms of their respective contracts and, supplementarily, the Organic Labor Law, which provides for the payment of certain amounts of money to cover the time that the dismissed employee is engaged in securing new employment. The State claimed that the amounts of money that the alleged victims were entitled to under the law were made available to them. Furthermore, the State asserted that the Law does not prescribe any procedure prior to terminating a contract and it was not necessary to give cause for the acts of dismissal. In this regard, it noted that the alleged victims were not public officials, as defined by the Constitution and the Public Service Statute. 44. The State contended that the alleged victims wrongly filed a criminal complaint with the Office of the Public Prosecutor on May 27, 2004. On this issue, it argued that the complainants “intend to confuse the IACHR with the filing of non-suitable remedies for the restoration of their allegedly violated right, without distinguishing between [on the one hand] the criminal responsibility that civil servants have as a consequence of their duties and of the public property they are in charge of, and, on the other hand, the consequences and obligations arising from termination of a labor relationship, which is settled in the labor rather than the criminal courts.” 45. As for the alleged violation of the right to freedom of expression, the State reiterates that the rescission of the contracts of the alleged victims was not a punishment, but rather involved the simple application of a contractual clause pursuant to the law. The State stressed that no court proceedings were brought against the complainants for issuing statements of a political nature, nor has the media been sanctioned or censured for being a vehicle of expression of citizens who supported the petition for the recall referendum. 46. Likewise, according to the Venezuelan State, there was no violation of the right to freedom of association, because the exercise of that right on a subject of such great national consequence as a referendum on a presidential recall, must be duly regulated. In support of this claim, the State argued that on September 25, 2003, the CNE issued the “Guidelines Regulating Processes of Recall Referenda of the Terms in Office of Popularly Elected Positions,” which ensures compliance of the State with the obligation to the democratic exercise of the will of the people. The State asserted that several different referenda processes carried out in Venezuela are of public knowledge and are widely known internationally, in which the participation of the citizenry, the collaboration of the CNE and of State authorities was evident. 47. With regard to the violation of the right to participate in government, the State contended that the complainants did not provide adequate and legally sound evidence to prove that they were the targets of political pressure to not exercise their political rights. In this regard, they contended that the rescission of a labor contract is not regarded in Venezuelan law as a sanction. They further asserted that the complainants can hardly contend that the State has infringed their right to have equal access to public service, since what occurred was the resolution of a work contract, in which the alleged victims lacked the status of public officials. It argued that there is nothing on record to prove that these citizens have ever taken part in a competitive process to apply for positions in the civil service. 48. Concerning the violation of the right to equal protection, the State reiterated its arguments on the nature of the contract of the alleged victims, indicating that they intended to link the termination of an employment relationship with the exercise of a political right, departing from inaccurate deductions, as well as illegally obtained recordings, rejected by Venezuelan national courts. The State argued that the alleged victims were aware of the nature of their contracts, which is reflected in the authority before which they presented their amparo proceeding for constitutional relief. 49. As for the violation of the right to judicial protection alleged by the petitioners, the State argued that the fact that the amparo claim for constitutional relief was found groundless did not mean that there has been a violation of the provisions of the Convention, because despite the existence of the ordinary labor procedure before the labor courts, the amparo claim, an action of a special nature, was admitted and processed in keeping with the law. According to the State, the judge who heard the case, based on the standard of free and reasoned judgment (sana crítica) examined the evidence introduced by the parties and ruled pursuant to the law. Additionally, the State believed that the alleged victims had a suitable remedy available to 7