present case, the Commission concludes that the State violated the principle of equality and nondiscrimination established in Articles 24 and 1.1 of the American Convention to the detriment of Rocío San Miguel Sosa, Magally Chang Girón, and Thais Coromoto Peña. B. The rights to a fair trial and judicial protection (Articles 8.1, 25.1 of the American Convention), in relation to the obligation to respect rights (Article 1.1 of the American Convention) 175. The articles of the Convention mentioned in the title of this section read as follows: Article 8. Right to a Fair Trial 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature. Article 25. Right to Judicial Protection 1. Everyone has the right to simple and prompt recourse, or any other effective recourse, to a competent court or tribunal for protection against acts that violate his fundamental rights recognized by the constitution or laws of the state concerned or by this Convention, even though such violation may have been committed by persons acting in the course of their official duties. Article 1.1 of the Convention states The States Parties to this Convention undertake to respect the rights and freedoms recognized herein and to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of those rights and freedoms, without any discrimination for reasons of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or any other social condition. 176. The Commission will analyze the facts in light of these standards from the following structure: 1. The due process within the context of the dismissal; 2. Analysis of effectiveness and due diligence of the amparo remedy and criminal complaint; 3. Reasonable time analysis of the amparo remedy. 1. Due process within the context of the dismissal 177. In the previous section, the Commission established that there was a misuse of power in the termination of contracts of the victims with the National Border Council. This implies that such termination constituted, in fact, an administrative penalty. The Inter-American Commission has stated that the misuse of power constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial and may involve the violation of other rights protected by the Convention170. 170 In the Case of the General Gallardo, the Inter-American Commission highlighted that “every administrative act must be directed at the accomplishment of a purpose, which is always determined, either expressly or tacitly (and hence is subject to regulation), by the provision that confers the authority to act. If the administrative authority or organ departs from that purpose, which conditions the exercise of its competence, any act or decision it takes for a different purpose ceases to be legitimate...”. Similarly, the author Alibert has said that “an agent of the administration commits an abuse of power when, in performing an act within his competence and respecting the forms imposed by legislation, he makes use of his power in cases, for motives and to purposes other than those for which this power was conferred upon him. The abuse of power is an abuse of mandate, an abuse of law. An administrative act may have been performed by the competent official with all the appearances of legality and yet this discretionary act, which the qualified official had the strict right to perform, may be rendered illegal if its author has used his powers for a purpose other than that for which they were conferred on him, or to speak in terms of jurisprudence, for a purpose other than the public interest or the good of the service". [T]he Commission finds that while in principle General Gallardo was detained after the respective arrest warrant was issued by a competent Tribunal, it is evident that 35