of the rights found in the Convention, but they also must not promulgate norms that impede the free exercise of those rights and must avoid the suppression or modification of the norms that protect them.80 The Court has, likewise, determined that it “is competent to order a State to annul a domestic law when its terms violate the rights established in the Convention.”81 104. The Court also recalls that, due to the subsidiary nature of the international jurisdiction, the State is “the principle guarantor of human rights and that, as a consequence, if a violation of said rights occurs, the State must resolve the issue in the domestic system […] before resorting to international forums.”82 The Court finds that, in this case, Peru adopted a law that limited the right of the dismissed employees to be heard by an impartial and competent body and the right to a prompt and effective judicial recourse. The State, however, claimed that it had derogated the norms that had impeded the filing of writs of amparo. The Court welcomes these normative changes and, therefore, it will not declare a violation of Article 2 of the Convention. C. Conclusion 105. In view of the preceding paragraphs, the Court finds that the 184 persons listed in Annex 1 of this judgment were victims of the violation of their right to be heard with the due guarantees and within a reasonable period by a competent, independent and impartial judge or court and to have a simple and prompt remedy before competent judges or courts, as established in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights contained in Article 1(1) therein. VIII-2 RIGHT TO WORK IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS83 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 106. The Commission maintained that the State violated Article 26 of the Convention with respect to the right to work. It did not, however, present specific arguments related to this issue. 107. The representatives indicated that, as a consequence of the dismissals, the alleged victims claimed that (i) they were deprived of job stability; (ii) the accumulation of the legally required time of service for a pension was interrupted; (iii) their access and that of their dependents to the social security system of health was abruptly interrupted; (iv) they no longer receive remuneration to sustain their right to aspire to an adequate living standard, including food, water, sanitation, clothing and housing, and (v) their life plan was 80 Cf. Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 30, 1999. Series C No. 52, para. 207 and Case of the National Federation of Maritime and Port Workers (FEMAPOR) v. Peru, supra, para. 99. 81 Cf. Case of Garibaldi v. Brazil. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of September 23, 2009. Series C No. 203, para. 173 and Case of the Dismissed Employees of Petroperú et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 186. 82 Cf. Case of Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru. Interpretation of the Judgment on Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 157, para. 66 and Case of Petro Urrego v. Colombia. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 8, 2020. Series C No. 406, para. 103. 83 Article 26, read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. 29