19. The State points out that the petitioners had recourse to an action for unconstitutionality and an administrative proceeding. As regards the former, it holds that if the petitioners believed that an unconstitutional and arbitrary dismissal had occurred they could have met the requirements set forth in Article 277 of the Constitution and taken their case to the Constitutional Tribunal. As to an administrative proceeding, the State mentions that such a proceeding may be instituted by natural or legal persons against rules, acts and administrative decisions adopted by the public administration or by legal or semi-public persons that infringe a right or direct interest of the complainant. It can also be invoked against administrative decisions that violate privileges established or recognized by a law when such decisions are adopted as a consequence of a generally applicable provision that violates the law that gives rise to those privileges. 20. Furthermore, the State argues, several of the petitioners appeared before the Administrative Tribunal to request the reliquidation of “judicial bonds“ that they received as severance pay. The State argues that the petitioners made use of the remedies available in Ecuador for that purpose, and yet with regard to their termination they did not even attempt to take their case to the courts, despite being at liberty to do so. Accordingly, the State affirms that there is nothing to show the petitioners were denied access to the available remedies, or that they were prevented from exhausting them, or that there has been a violation of Article 25 of the American Convention. 21. With respect to the alleged violations, the State says that the petitioners confuse removal [remoción] from office or dismissal [destitución] with straightforward termination of duties [cesamiento de funciones].6 In the case of the first two it is necessary to institute proceedings to verify and determine the commission of the wrongdoing, in the framework of which the official must be afforded full guarantees to exercise their right to a defense. In the instant case, the State says that there was no dismissal of the justices and, therefore, it was inappropriate to speak of the need for a proceeding before a competent, independent and impartial tribunal that allows the exercise of the right of defense, since the justices were not charged with any statutory offence. Nor, therefore, was it necessary to notify them in detail of the proceeding or the charges against them, since there simply were none. Based on the foregoing, the State argues that Articles 8 and 9 of the American Convention have not been violated. 22. The State, furthermore, denies any violation of Articles 23 and 24 of the American Convention inasmuch as all the terminated justices had and have access to public service under conditions of equality. So much so, asserts the State, that, had they wished, they could have stood for appointment to the new Supreme Court. In that connection, the State explains that several of the petitioners stood for reappointment and three of them are current members of the Supreme Court and others at present occupy other public posts. Finally, the State requests that the petition be declared inadmissible and the record closed. IV. ANALYSIS A. The Commission’s Competence Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, Ratione Temporis and Ratione Loci 23. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims individuals on whose behalf Ecuador undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited the respective instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has ratione personae competence to examine the petition.7 6 The State bases its distinction on the definitions of removal [remoción], dismissal [destitución] and termination [cese] contained in the Diccionario Enciclopédico de Derecho Usual, Diccionario Jurídico Ámbar con Legislación Ecuatoriana, and Enciclopedia Jurídica Omeba. 7 In respect of the following alleged victims: Ernesto Albán Gómez, Jorge Andrade Lara, Santiago Andrade Ubidia, José Julio Benítez Astudillo, Armando Bermeo Castillo, Eduardo Brito Mieles, Nicolás Castro Patiño, Teodoro Coello Vásquez, 6