for judicial protection his applications were examined and decided by the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. 3. After reviewing the positions of the parties, the Commission concludes that it does have jurisdiction to hear the claim and that the case is admissible under Article 46 of the American Convention. Consequently, the Commission decides to so notify the parties, to continue examining the substance of the claims concerning alleged violations of the American Convention, to publish this Admissibility Report and to include it in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. II. PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION 4. On May 4, 2000, the Commission received a petition from the Human Rights Institute of the "José Simeón Cañas" Central American University, IDHUCA. On July 9, 2000, the IACHR conveyed the complaint to the Government of El Salvador, asking it to answer within 90 days. On October 31, 2000, the Government answered the petition. On November 3, 2000, the Commission conveyed the State's answer to the petitioners. On December 4, 2000, the Commission received the petitioners' reply to the State's comments, which was relayed to the latter by a note dated December 13, 2000. On January 19, 2001, the State requested a 30-day extension to comment. The Commission granted this extension on January 24, 2001. On March 1, 2001, the State filed additional comments on the admissibility of the petition. On February 22, 2002, the petitioners asked the Commission to rule the petition admissible. III. A. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES The petitioners 5. The initial petition alleged that on August 11, 1994, Mr. Eduardo Benjamín Colindres was appointed full magistrate of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal for a period of five years. On November 22, 1996, by Decree 899, the Legislative Assembly removed him from office because of alleged irregularities in the performance of his duties. On December 2, 1996, Mr. Colindres filed with the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court an application for constitutional protection against the decision of the Legislative Assembly. On November 4, 1997, the Supreme Court held that his separation from office violated his rights to a hearing and to job security. It ordered him reinstated with back pay. 2