40. The petitioners said that, on January 23, 1996, ENAPU distributed to the staff, including the alleged victims, a communiqué similar to the directive.13 They contended that, on January 27, 1996, a communiqué was published in the daily newspaper La República specifying that the employees invited to resign had five days to do it, after which “the Ministry of Labor would proceed to terminate their employment in accordance with the law.”14 41. The petitioners reported that, as of January 1996 the alleged victims started receiving letters inviting them to resign. They said that they decided not to accept the voluntary retirement program and therefore they were dismissed in February 1996.15 42. Before the order to terminate employment, on January 31, 1996, the National ENAPU Employees Federation, of which 25 of the alleged victims were members, filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) against ENAPU with the Civil Court of Callao.16 It requested that ENAPU not implement Supreme Decree No. 003-96-PCM and Article 7 of Decree Law No. 26120 because said laws made it possible to unconstitutionally terminate employment contracts that were in force for employees.17 They also requested reinstatement of those persons who might eventually be terminated if this threat of violation were to materialize.18 43. On December 6, 1996, almost one year after the dismissals took place, the First Civil Court of Callao issued a judgment ruling that the suit for constitutional relief (amparo) was without merits.19 The Court contended that the ENAPU “had not committed any violation or threatened to violate the constitutional right of the complainant when implementing the downsizing program and if it had not done so it would have failed to observe the law.”20 44. The Federation filed an appeal and, on March 18, 1997, the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Callao upheld the judgment of the First Civil Court of Callao ruling that the suit for constitutional relief (amparo) was without merit.21 Afterwards, the Federation filed a special appeal, and on March 3 1998, the Constitutional Court upheld the ruling of the Civil Court and ruled that the suit for constitutional relief (amparo) was without merits.22 The Constitutional Court contended that: (...) the respondent, in strict compliance with the procedure established by (...) legal norms, issued Directive No. 001-96-ENAPUSA/GRRHH (...) stipulating the guidelines to follow for the implementation of the above-mentioned program for voluntary retirement, on the basis of which it could not be inferred that there was any alleged intent to restrict or jeopardize the constitutional rights of those who were being represented by the complainant; as a 13 Annex 3. Petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 14 Annex 3. Petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 15 Annex 4. Report on the employees dismissed by ENAPU S.A. Annex to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 16 Annex 5. Suits filed for constitutional protection (amparo) by the National Federation of ENAPU Employees, January 31, 1996. Annex 1-H to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 17 Annex 5. Suits filed for constitutional protection (amparo) by the National Federation of ENAPU Employees, January 31, 1996. Annex 1-H to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 18 Annex 5. Suits filed for constitutional protection (amparo) by the National Federation of ENAPU Employees, January 31, 1996. Annex 1-H to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 19 Annex 6. Ruling No. 12 of the First Civil Court of Callao, December 6, 1996. Annex 1-I to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 20 Annex 6. Ruling No. 12 of the First Civil Court of Callao, December 6, 1996. Annex 1-I to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 21 Annex 7. Ruling No. 21 of the Civil Chamber of the Superior of Callao, March 18, 1997. Annex 1-J to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 22 Annex 8. Constitutional Court judgment, March 3, 1998. Annex 1-K to the petitioners’ communication of November 2, 1998. 8