the Collective Agreement on Working Conditions between the STOJ and the Judiciary. Accordingly, this Court will analyze, in a first chapter, the alleged violations of the guarantees of due process and judicial protection in the context of the declaration of illegality of the strike and the dismissal process (1). It will then examine the alleged violations of the rights to strike, to freedom of association, to freedom to organize and to work of the dismissed workers (2). VII-1 RIGHTS TO JUDICIAL GUARANTEES AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW 61 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 55. The Commission recalled that the guarantees established in Article 8 of the Convention apply not only to criminal proceedings, but also to proceedings of another nature, in particular to disciplinary proceedings. Thus, it considered that the dismissal of the Judiciary workers was a punitive process, and therefore the guarantees relating to a criminal proceeding should be applied mutatis mutandi. It emphasized that, in this specific case, the alleged victims were not subject to an administrative procedure prior to the sanction of dismissal, that they were not notified of the start of a disciplinary procedure against them, nor did they have the opportunity to defend themselves. It considered that the argument that there was no need for a prior procedure with the guarantees of due process - since the cause of dismissal was provided for in the applicable regulations and was the direct consequence of the declaration of illegality of the strike - was not a reason to deprive the alleged victims of an opportunity to defend themselves in relation to the aforementioned strike action and whether or not it should entail a sanction. 56. The Commission also stressed that the alleged victims filed a series of appeals against the ruling of May 13, 1996, which declared the strike illegal. They also filed a series of appeals against the order of dismissal issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on September 1, 1999. Finally, after filing motions for reconsideration or other appeals, 28 persons were rehired. However, the Commission considered that the 65 alleged victims who were not rehired did not have access to an effective remedy for these human rights violations, and therefore held that the State violated the right to judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of the 65 employees who were not rehired. 57. For all the foregoing reasons, the Commission concluded that the State violated the right to be heard, the right of defense and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(1), 8(2) (b) and (c) and 25 of the Convention, in relation the obligations established in Article 1(1) of the same instrument, to the detriment of the 65 employees of the Judiciary who were dismissed from their posts and were not subsequently rehired. a) Justice operators: court secretaries, court officials, secretaries and officials of the Peace Courts and court commissioners. b) Administrative workers: technicians, warehouse managers, office workers, budget analysts, receptionists, clerks and accounting assistants. c) Maintenance workers: janitors, carpenters, elevator operators, upholsterers, parking attendants, drivers, welders. 61 Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof. 19