5 25 (Right to Judicial Protection) in relation to Articles 1.1, 2 and 33 and 50.2 (Duty of the State to comply in good faith with the recommendations issued by the Commission in its reports). Furthermore, it requested the Court to declare that Law 25 and the provision contained in Article 43 of the Panamanian Constitution are contrary to the Convention, because they allow laws to be retroactive and that, in consequence, they should be modified or repealed in accordance with Article 2 of the said Convention. The Commission also requested the Court to require the State to reestablish the 270 workers in the exercise of their rights and to make reparations to and compensate the victims or their families for the acts committed by its agents, as established in Article 63.1 of the Convention. Lastly, the Commission requested that the State should be condemned to pay the costs and expenses of the proceeding. 12. The Commission appointed Carlos Ayala Corao and Hélio Bicudo as its Delegates, Jorge E. Taiana and Manuel Velasco-Clark as its Advisors, and Minerva Gómez, Ariel Dulitzky, Viviana Krsticevic and Marcela Matamoros as their assistants. In a note received by the Secretariat of the Court (hereinafter “the Secretariat”) on June 18, 1998, Marcela Matamoros advised that she was withdrawing from the instant case. 13. On January 28, 1998, once the President of the Court (hereinafter “the President”) had made a preliminary examination of the application, the Secretariat notified it to the State, and informed it of the time limits for replying to it, opposing preliminary objections and appointing its representatives. Moreover, the State was invited to name a Judge ad hoc. 14. On February 20, 1998, Panama appointed Rolando Adolfo Reyna Rodríguez as the Judge ad hoc. 15. On February 27, 1998, the State appointed Carlos Vargas Pizarro as its Agent. 16. After having requested two extensions to the period for preliminary objections, the State filed the following on April 17, 1998: presenting 1. Inadmissibility of the application owing to non-compliance with the provisions of Article 51 of the Convention, which state that in order to refer a contested case to the Court, the Commission must adopt the respective resolution; 2. Inadmissibility of the application because the subject of the application is the replication of a petition that has already been examined by the International Labor Organization (hereinafter “the ILO”); 3. Inadmissibility of the application because the Commission has violated the rule of confidentiality, by transmitting a copy of Report No. 37/97 to the petitioners; 4. Expiry of the application filed before the Court; and requested that the Court should declare the application inadmissible and order the case to be closed.