30. The Commission has also noted that it is the State’s position that the petitioners should have exhausted the administrative remedy available to challenge rules, acts and administrative decisions that violate a right or direct interest of the complainant, or that infringe privileges, provided that they have been adopted as a consequence of a generally applicable provision that violates the law that gives rise to those privileges. The Commission regards as founded the argument concerning the ineffectiveness of the administrative proceeding because the case would have been decided in the last instance by the Supreme Court whose members replaced the alleged victims. Accordingly, the petitioners were also under no obligation to pursue or exhaust the administrative remedy before taking their case to the inter-American system. 31. With respect to the amparo, the Commission notes that the resolution issued by the new Constitutional Court prevented the presentation of such recourse: To establish that in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including number 25-160 () for the alleged violation of the Constitution, as to the forms or the merits, the only action that applies is the action for unconstitutionality which must be brought before the Constitutional Court () and that any recourse ofamparo that were presented in the national courts with respect to said resolution, must be rejected directly and declared inadmissible by the respective judge, because otherwise they would be deciding a case against the express text of the law, which would in turn generate the corresponding judicial actions.9 (emphasis added) 32. The Inter-American Commission considers that the Ecuadorian State did not supply the petitioners with a simple and effective recourse to challenge the congressional resolutions which they believe violate their human rights. The Commission finds that the exception to prior exhaustion of domestic remedies provided in Article 46(2)(a) of the American Convention is applicable in the instant case. 2. Deadline for lodging the petition 33. Given that one of the exceptions contained in Article 46(2) applies in the instant case, the requirement set down in article 46(1)(b) is not applicable in this matter. The petition was lodged in December 2004 after the Constitutional Tribunal adopted a decision on the only recourse available against the Parliamentary resolution that dismissed the petitioners. The Inter-American Commission finds that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time in the terms of Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 34. Article 46(1)(c) of the Convention provides that admission of petitions lodged shall be subject to the requirement that “the subject of the petition or communication is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement.” Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition if it “is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization.” In this case, the parties have not advanced arguments on either of these grounds for inadmissibility, nor does the Commission note their existence from the proceedings. 4. Nature of the allegations 35. The IACHR finds that, if proven, the allegations on the proceeding that led to the termination of the members of the Supreme Court could constitute violations of Articles 8 and 25, in connection with Article 1(1) of the American Convention. 9 Resolution of the Constitutional Court adopted in the session of December 2, 2004. 8