notary on condition that Mr. Hendrix submit proof to the CANG of having acquired Guatemalan citizenship. 49. In this connection, the IACHR considers it important to point out that, in Guatemalan law, the amparo action is a broad action to protect rights that are thought to have been injured. Thus "there is no area in which amparo may not apply, and it shall be in order wherever the acts, decisions, provisions, or laws of the government implicitly threaten, restrict, or infringe rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws." The law considers an action for amparo to be an action for the protection of constitutional guarantees, as it may be brought by an individual "in order to maintain or restore his or her enjoyment of the rights and guarantees established in the Constitution or in any other law." 4 50. In this connection, the Commission notes that the alleged victim in the amparo action took judicial action with regard to his belief that the CANG's refusal to authorize him to exercise the profession of notary was a violation of his right to equal treatment and pursued his claim to the right to exercise this profession while maintaining his citizenship in the local courts. Thus, the matter at issue in the petition under its consideration has been brought before the national courts, and one of these remedies might have proved appropriate and effective for resolving this type of situation at the domestic level. However, although the alleged victim was granted amparo, his claim to the right to exercise the profession of notary while maintaining his citizenship was not accepted, in view of the terms of the Court of Constitutionality judgment. 51. The Commission considers that, in this case, the domestic remedies have been exhausted pursuant to the requirements set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Filing period for the petition 52. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that, to be admissible, a petition must be filed within a period of six months from the date on which the filing party was notified of the final national judgment. 53. With regard to the instant petition, the IACHR has established that the domestic remedies were exhausted with the April 21, 2004 judgment of the Court of Constitutionality. According to the record accompanying the application to the IACHR, notification of this judgment was given on June 14, 2004, and the petition was filed with the IACHR on November 5, 2004. The Commission therefore concludes that this requirement has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and international res judicata 54. The Commission understands that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international venue and that it is not essentially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. Therefore, the requirements of Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have also been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 55. As the Commission has indicated before in other cases, it is not appropriate at this stage to determine whether or not there has been violation of the American Convention. For the purposes of admissibility, the IACHR need only decide 4 Amparo, Habeas Corpus, and Constitutionality Act, Decree 1-86, Articles 8 and 10.