the Manager for Human Resources and Well-being of the Judicial Branch issued Resolution No. 1372-2015GRHBGG-PJ of October 30, 2015, recognizing an accrued credit, to the order of Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre, in the amount of 86,396.67 nuevos soles for operating expenses. It notes that the petitioner has been receiving the payment in sums that are paid out monthly. III. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence, duplication of procedure and international res judicata Competence ratione personae: Competence ratione loci: Competence ratione temporis: Competence ratione materiae: Duplication of procedure and international res judicata B. Admissibility requirements Yes Yes Yes Yes, American Convention (instrumented deposited on July 28, 1978) No 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 20. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a complaint lodged with the Commission in keeping with Article 44 of the same instrument to be found admissible, one must have pursued and exhausted domestic remedies in keeping with generally accepted principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the national authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, have the opportunity to resolve it before it is taken up by an international body or mechanism. 21. In the instant case the Commission takes note that the petitioner’s claims gave way to two judicial proceedings, one related to his reinstatement, and the other regarding compensation for damages arising from his dismissal. 22. As for the first, the Commission observes that Decree-Law No. 25496, established the inadmissibility of a constitutional amparo action aimed at directly or indirectly challenging the effects of the application of DecreeLaw No. 25492. Notwithstanding the above-mentioned legal impediment, the Commission takes note that the petitioner filed an amparo action on August 7, 1992, which was found inadmissible on March 17, 1993. Subsequently, on June 21, 1994, the appellate court vacated the judgment, for it considered that not all the respondents had been notified, and remanded the case for processing. 23. Based on the case file for this petition, it is apparent that as a result of the creation of the courts and chambers of public law, the petitioner’s case was finally referred for resolution to the First Transitory Corporate Court Specialized in Public Law, which on June 5, 2001 found the action inadmissible. That decision was adopted arguing that given that Decree-Law No. 25492 had been struck down by Law No. 27433, therefore the violation of rights invoked by the plaintiff had ceased. On review, the Third Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima vacated the judgment, for it considered that even with the noted express derogation, the violation of the moving party’s constitutional rights had not ceased, nor had the state of affairs prior to the violation been restored; and the judge below was ordered to rule on the merits of the action. 24. Accordingly, on June 16, 2003, the 64th Court Specialized in Civil Matters of Lima found the action to be wellfounded, and ordered the immediate reinstatement of the petitioner as principal judge, but considered that his claim regarding recognition of salary not paid to be without foundation. That decision was affirmed on October 21, 2003 by the Third Civil Chamber of Lima. 4