58. In his final arguments, 62 the representative agreed with the Commission, considering that the dismissal of the Judiciary workers as a result of the strike held in 1996 was a punitive measure that did not comply with the guarantees established in Article 8(2) of the Convention. 59. The State argued that there are different ways to comply with the duty to provide judicial protection. It indicated that, in this case, it could be established that the judicial guarantees were expressed through different mechanisms whereby the workers could defend themselves and be heard. In the first place, it held that the procedure for declaring the legality of a strike was the appropriate occasion for workers to present arguments in their defense. However, it alleged that they voluntarily decided not to make use of the procedural opportunity granted them by law to be heard, by going on strike in clear disregard of the legal provisions to the detriment of the public service. It pointed out that the Labor Code also protects the rights of the employer, and that the workers, by not exhausting the procedure to declare the legality of the strike, prompted its declaration of illegality and allowed the employer to proceed with the dismissal as a consequence of the very same declaration of unlawfulness. 60. The State further argued that the workers also had a second opportunity to be heard through a motion for reconsideration. Thus, if they considered that their dismissal was unfair, they could have challenged it through a motion for reconsideration. It indicated that this remedy is used as an acquired right by legal custom and, although it is not specifically established in the Labor Code, it is commonly used by workers in accordance with the principle of simplicity and minimum formalities of labor laws. It emphasized that some employees, after filing a motion for reconsideration, succeeded in being reinstated because they proved that there were no grounds for dismissal, thereby demonstrating the effectiveness of the remedy. 61. The State added that the workers also had at their disposal the ordinary labor proceeding for reinstatement, established in Article 321 of the Labor Code. It explained that this proceeding is used by the parties to allow a labor judge to examine the grounds for dismissal, in order to ratify or not such grounds. This process depends on the dispositive principle, and therefore it was up to the employees to initiate it or not. The State also argued that it was possible to file a motion for reinstatement, under Article 380 of the Labor Code, or to file a constitutional action for amparo. Thus, the State concluded that, at no time - from the beginning of the procedure to declare the strike illegal until the dismissals - were the workers deprived of judicial guarantees, since throughout the process they had access to suitable remedies and procedures to be heard and to defend themselves. B. Considerations of the Court 62. The Court recalls that this case examines the dismissal of 65 workers of the Judiciary for participating in a strike action. The Court will now determine whether these procedures respected the procedural guarantees applicable to materially punitive proceedings (1). It will then analyze whether the State guaranteed the right to judicial protection by providing the alleged victims with a simple, prompt and effective remedy against the decisions taken in this case that allegedly violated their fundamental rights (2). 62 With regard to the effects of the failure to submit a pleadings and motions brief by the representatives of alleged victims, in application of Article 29(2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court has, in other cases, allowed the parties to participate in certain procedural actions, taking into account the stages that have expired in accordance with the opportune procedural moment. In those cases, the Court considered that, in view of the absence of the pleadings and motions brief, it would not assess any arguments or evidence by the representative that added facts, rights, or alleged victims to the case, or any claims for reparations distinct from those requested by the Commission, since they were not submitted at the appropriate procedural moment. Those procedural rules will be applied in the instant case. Cf. Case of Liakat Alibux v. Suriname. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of January 30, 2014. Series C No. 276, para. 29, and Case of Martínez Esquivia v. Colombia. Preliminary objections, merits and reparations. Judgment of October 6, 2020. Series C No. 412, para. 77 and footnote 79. 20