56. The petitioners alleged that the State did not deny that, in January 1996, the alleged victims started receiving notarized letters whereby they were invited to participate in the voluntary retirement program or face dismissal.45 The IACHR noted that, in the record, there is a list, issued by Petroperú, of “employees invited but who did not accept the program” where the alleged victims appear.46 57. On February 6, 1996, the alleged victims received notarized letters from Petroperú in which they were informed that, because they had not accepted the voluntary retirement program with incentives, their employment ties with the company had been terminated.47 The following day, the union addressed the Labor Authority to complain that, because a case file had not been opened by the Labor Authority and the union had not been subsequently notified, the right of the employees to defense and due process of law had been violated. The petitioners allege that they did not receive any response.48 58. The union filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) against the State and Petroperú requesting suspension of Supreme Decree No. 072-95-PCM for having violated their right to work.49 On March 18, 1996, the Specialized Civil Court of Talara ruled that the petition was inadmissible.50 The union filed an appeal and, on July 3, 1996, the Second Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Piura upheld the judgment that had been appealed.51 59. In addition to the suit for constitutional relief (amparo), the alleged victims filed administrative dispute proceedings calling for the nullification of the resolutions of the Directorate for the Prevention and Settlement of Labor Disputes and the Regional Directorate of Piura.52 On February 26, 1996, the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Piura ruled that the petition was inadmissible and that their petition was “legally impossible.”53 4. Dismissals by MINEDU 60. On September 13, 1996, Ministerial Resolution No. 218-96-ED was published, whereby the “Regulations governing the performance evaluation program for the Ministry’s employees” was adopted.54 With Directive No. 001-96-CE-ED the Ministry established the Rules and Procedures for the Implementation of the Program for Evaluating the Employment Performance of the Permanent Staff of the Ministry of Education.55 45 Annex 24. Petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 46 Annex 25. List – Staff invited and not accepting the program. Petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 47 Annex 26. Notarized letter of February 6, 1996. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of December 12, 1996. Annex 27. Additional arguments supporting the appeal, February 7, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 48 49 Annex 28. Resolution No. 7 of the Specialized Civil Court, February 9, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of February 19, 1996. 50 Annex 29. Judgment No. 64-96 of the Specialized Civil Court of Talara of March 26, 1996. Enclosed with the State’s communication of September 6, 1996. 51 30, 1996. Annex 30. Resolution No. 26 of the Superior Court of Piura, July 3, 1996. Enclosed with the State’s communication of October 52 Annex 31. Resolution No. 1 of the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Piura, February 26, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 28, 1996. 53 Annex 31. Ruling No. 1 of the Second Chamber of the Superior Court of Piura, of February 26, 1996. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 28, 1996. 54 Annex 32. Ministerial Resolution No. 218-96-ED. The regulations governing the performance evaluation program for the Ministry’s employees are adopted, Lima, September 12, 1996. Official Gazette El Peruano, Page 142519. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 55 Annex 33. Directive No. 001-96-CE-ED. Enclosed with the petitioners’ communication of September 8, 2000. 11