36 and all the structures by which public power was exercised so that they were able to ensure the free and full exercise of those rights juridically. 93. Regarding Article 2 of the Convention, the Commission alleged that: (a) The elimination of the possibility of the review and control of the administrative act by article 9 of Decree Law No. 25640 and article 27 of Resolution 1239 A-9-CACL violated the alleged victims’ right to a simple and prompt recourse by removing the administrative act from governmental control and, subsequently, from jurisdictional scrutiny, in the terms of Articles 25(1) and 8(1) of the American Convention, and (b) The State has not adapted its laws to the Convention and has therefore failed to comply with the obligation imposed on the States Parties by Article 2 thereof. In this regard, Act No. 27487 “which derogated Decree Law No. 26093 and authorizes the establishment of committees to review the collective dismissals in the public sector” does not refer to the derogation of Decree Law No. 25640. The common intervenors’ arguments 94. In addition to endorsing most of the arguments set out by the Inter-American Commission, the common intervenors alleged that the State had violated Article 25(1) of the American Convention by denying the right of the alleged victims to a simple, prompt and effective recourse that would protect them from the violations to which they were subjected by being arbitrarily deprived of their employment and other rights inherent in their working conditions, removing this situation from the control of the competent judicial authorities without any justification. 95. The common intervenors also alleged that the State had violated Article 8(2) of the Convention, specifically the right of the alleged victims to have access to minimum guarantees of due process: by establishing, as part of the evaluation process introduced after the April 1992 coup d‘état, motives for dismissal from employment other than those included in the Framework Law on the Administrative Career governing these employees; by not notifying them personally and individually of the results of the process, or allowing those affected to review and contest the decisions adopted as a result of the evaluation process before an administrative body, and by the fact that those decisions were executed by a person who, throughout the entire evaluation process, lacked the requisite legal authority. 96. Regarding Article 1(1) of the American Convention, the common intervenors alleged that, as a result of the violation of the rights embodied in Articles 8, 25 and 26 of the Convention, the State had also violated its obligation to respect the rights and freedoms recognized in the Convention, as well as its duty to ensure their free and full exercise to all persons subject to its jurisdiction. 97. Finally, the common intervenors alleged that Peru was responsible for failing to comply with the obligation to adopt domestic legal provisions, contain in Article 2 of the Convention, by adopting and implementing laws that prevented the congressional employees from enjoying rights that were protected and guaranteed in the Convention.