11 33. That another group of victims, by means of its representative, alleged that by only allowing the common interveners to present their observations- and not the other victims’ representatives-, the CEE violated the Rules of Procedure of this Tribunal, which establishes that the common intervener is an intermediary between the victims and the Court during the proceeding before the Court. It asserted that, therefore, the CEE did not afford the opportunity to present any argument or observation during the proceeding. 34. That the Commission noted that the proceeding of the CEE must be analyzed within the context of the Judgment, in a case that "was submitted before the Court precisely due to an issue of judicial guarantees and judicial protection [in which] it was requested that the 257 victims have access to a simple, prompt and effective recourse [to...] review the claims concerning their dismissal, respecting the judicial guarantees". According to the Commission, the Judgment implies a due process and the participation of the victims in the body so established; therefore, it deemed that the CEE would have to comply with the guarantees of due process in order to fulfill the Judgment of this Tribunal. 35. That in the Judgment, the Tribunal established that the compensations must be determined taking into account the specific circumstances of each one of the 257 victims. Nevertheless, the Court notes that the CEE devised a unique formula to calculate the compensation which only varies based on the years of services rendered, without taking into account another specific circumstance of each one of the 257 victims. Moreover, the resolution of the CEE, which would be "final", assigns the duty to set the compensatory amounts owed to each one of the victims to a new body still to be set up. That is, in that sense it is not clear that the resolution is “final”. 36. That this Tribunal considers, in addition, that in order to be able to establish the legal consequences and, if applicable, determine the respective compensations under the above mentioned terms, it was necessary for the body to develop a proceeding according to the guarantees of due process. To that end, the Court has already established that the application of Article 8(1) of the Convention is not strictly limited to judicial remedies, “but rather [to] the procedural requirements that should be observed in the procedural instances” so that a person may defend himself adequately in the face of any kind of act of the State that affects his rights12. 37. That one of the main elements of the due process is the possibility for the person demanding justice to be heard, which includes filing the complaints he considered appropriate before the respective body. In that respect, the Court notes that the proceeding conducted before the CEE did not respect this right, given that it only afforded one instance and opportunity for the victims to submit "their observations and considerations in relation to the collective dismissals to which the employees of the Congress of the Republic were subjected" (supra Considering clause 12) for 15 minutes, which is not the manner to ensure the full representation of all the interested parties a few days before the final decision. The Tribunal deems that, evidently, this proceeding was insufficient to ensure the access to an effective recourse that would restore the injured parties to the enjoyment of the rights and liberties violated; in fact, to provide a reparation according to the violations so declared. 38. That the State, moreover, indicated that the reparation ordered by the CEE is consistent with the domestic precedents of other compromised dismissals and the laws applied to repair them. It asserted that the criteria applied by the CEE are very similar to the ones applied to more of the 60.000 dismissals in the State and that, in turn, an 12 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court V. Perú. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of January 31, 2001. Series C No. 71, para. 69; Case of Baena Ricardo et al. V. Panama. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of February 2, 2001. Series C No. 72, para. 124; and Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (arts. 27.2, 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-9/87 of October 6, 1987. Series A No. 9, para. 27.