25. The Commission considers that mindful of the legal context and circumstances of the case, pursuing the amparo action would suffice to consider domestic remedies exhausted. 2 Accordingly, the Commission concludes that the alleged victim exhausted domestic remedies with the handing down of the judgment of October 21, 2003 by the Third Civil Chamber of Lima, in keeping with Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 26. As regards the action for damages, it appears that it was filed on May 26, 2008, and was resolved in the petitioner’s favor by the Tenth Civil Court of Lima on May 12, 2014. That judgment was affirmed on April 6, 2016 by the First Civil Chamber of Lima. 27. The Commission recalls that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies refers to remedies that are adequate and effective. Accordingly, if the alleged victim raised the issue by one of the valid and adequate alternatives in the domestic legal system and the State had the opportunity to remedy the issue in its jurisdiction, the aim of the international rule is satisfied. 3 28. In light of the foregoing, the Commission considers that the requirement Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention is satisfied with respect to the action for compensation filed by the petitioner. 2. Timeliness of the petition 29. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention provides that for a petition to be found admissible it must have been filed within six months from the date on which the interested person was notified of the final decision that exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. 30. The Commission recalls that in the instant case domestic remedies were exhausted, both by the decision that resolved the amparo action, handed down on October 21, 2003; and by the judgment that resolved the damages action, handed down on April 6, 2016. The State has expressly recognized that the petitioner filed the legal actions in domestic courts. 31. As a result, as the petition was filed on January 30, 2003, the exhaustion of remedies occurred while the case was being reviewed for admissibility. According to the doctrine of the Commission, the analysis on the prerequisites established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention should be done in light of the situation at the time of the ruling on admissibility or inadmissibility of the petition. 4 Therefore, the Commission concludes that the petition meets the requirement established at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention. 3. Colorable claim 32. For purposes of admissibility, the Commission must decide whether the petition states facts that tend to establish a violation, as stipulated in Article 47(b) of the American Convention, or whether the petition is “manifestly groundless” or “obviously out of order,” as per Article 47(c). The standard of appreciation for these rules is different from that required for deciding on the merits of a complaint. The Commission must perform a prima facie evaluation to examine whether the complaint establishes a foundation for the apparent or potential violation of a right guaranteed by the Convention and not to establish the existence of a violation. That examination is a summary analysis that does not entail pre-judging or giving any opinion on the merits. 33. As regards colorable claim, the petitioner considered that the State violated the rights contained in Articles 5, 8, 9, 11, 17, and 25 of the American Convention to the detriment of Mr. Yangali Iparraguirre for being removed from his position as judge of the Superior Court of Lima, the impediment to questioning that decision by an amparo action, the delay in the judicial proceedings and in paying the compensation ordered. The State argued that the petitioner had proper guarantees in the judicial proceedings and that as a result of them the IACHR, Report No. 163/17. Admissibility. Yngrit Hermelinda Garro Vásquez. Peru. November 30, 2017, para. 13. IACHR, Report No. 57/03, Admissibility, Case 12,337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz v. Chile. October 10, 2003, para. 40. 4 IACHR, Report No. 15/15, Petition 374-05. Members of the Trade Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. Colombia. March 24, 2015, para. 41. See I/A Court H.R., Case of Wong Ho Wing v. Peru. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 30, 2015. Series C No. 297, paras. 25-28. 2 3 5