4 151. That the State has not complied with the provisions of Article 2 of the American Convention on Human Rights, since it has not adapted its legislation to the provisions of the Convention. Moreover, the Commission determined: 1. To recommend to the Panamanian State that it should order the reinstatement of the workers dismissed under Law 25 of December 14, 1990, identified in paragraph 5 of this report, in their respective positions or in others with the same conditions as those in which they were working at the time they were dismissed; that it should recognize their back pay and other fringe benefits to which they have a right; and that it should pay them compensation for the damage caused by their unjustified dismissal. 2. To recommend to the State that, pursuant to the constitutional and legislative procedures in force, it should adopt all necessary measures to make the rights and guarantees contained in the American Convention on Human Rights fully effective. 3. To recommend to the State that it should modify, repeal or permanently annul the said Law 25. 4. To recommend to the State that the expression “to punish without prior trial” in Article 33 of the Panamanian Constitution should be duly interpreted, in order to comply with the obligation assumed by the Republic of Panama to adapt the provisions of its legislation to those of the Convention. 5. To recommend that the rule contained in Article 43 of the Panamanian Constitution that permits ex post facto laws for reasons of “public order” or “social interest”, should be amended and/or interpreted, pursuant to Article 9 of the American Convention, to the effect that “no one shall be convicted of any act or omission that did not constitute a criminal offense, under the applicable law, at the time it was committed”. 6. To forward this report to the State, which shall not be authorized to publish it, granting the State a period of two months to adopt the above recommendations. The period shall commence from the day on which the report is transmitted. 7. To inform the petitioner of the adoption of an Article 50 report in this case. The Commission forwarded the said report to the State, and granted it a period of sixty days in which to inform it of the measures adopted to comply with the abovementioned recommendations. 9. On December 10, 1997, the State rejected the Commission’s report, alleging “legal reasons and …[of domestic law that impede it] from executing the recommendations of the honorable Inter-American Commission on Human Rights”. 10. On January 14, 1998, the Commission, in the minutes of a conference telephone call, decided to refer the case to the Court. IV PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT 11. On January 16, 1998, the Commission presented the application to the Court in which it invoked Articles 50 and 51 of the American Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” or the “Inter-American Convention”), and Articles 2, 26 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The Commission submitted the case for the Court to decide if there had been a violation of the following articles of the Convention: 8 (Right to a Fair Trial); 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws); 10 (Right to Compensation); 15 (Right of Assembly); 16 (Freedom of Association); and