5 b. the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or c. there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 22. In this case, the State alleges that domestic remedies have not been exhausted as stipulated in Article 46.1.a of the Convention, and that the petitioner could have defended his rights with appeals for amparo (protection), constitutionality challenges, administrative litigation, and after 2008, lawsuits for protection. For his part, the petitioner requests application of the exception for exhaustion of domestic remedies because he lacked an adequate and effective remedy to restore him to his position and respect his rights. 23. Considering the parties’ positions, the IACHR must determine which domestic remedies must be exhausted in cases like this one, in the light of the jurisprudence of the inter-American system. In this regard, the Inter-American Court has established that when domestic remedies are not available either as a matter of law or as a matter of fact, petitioners are exempt from the obligation to exhaust them. If a domestic remedy is virtually inaccessible for the alleged victim, there is certainly no obligation to exhaust it to remedy the legal situation.1 24. On this matter, the Commission notes that in information that is public knowledge and cited in other cases, the resolution of the Constitutional Court on December 2, 2004, stated: To rule that to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, such as No. 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004, for an alleged violation of the Constitution, in substance or in form, the only action admissible is an unconstitutionality suit, which must be placed before the Constitutional Court, in line with the resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice adopted on June 27, 2001, and published in Official Register No. 378 on July 27 of that year; and that any amparo remedy lodged with the country’s courts in connection with the aforesaid resolution must be rejected outright and ruled inadmissible by the judges, since to do otherwise would to be admit proceedings against express law, which would lead to the corresponding judicial actions. 2 25. The Commission notes with respect to the amparo remedy that, as affirmed by the petitioner and not refuted by the State, said resolution, issued by the new members of the Constitutional Court established after the Congress had deposed the former magistrates of that organ, expressly ruled out amparo actions against resolution 25-160 that had fired the petitioner and the other members of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, so the IACHR notes that in accordance with said resolution the amparo remedy was not available to challenge the dismissal decision. 26. As for the unconstitutionality suit, which the resolution of December 2, 2004, said was available to challenge the terminations, the Commission notes in the first place that, as it has observed on previous occasions, the text of that resolution says it is based on the Supreme Court’s resolution of 1 See I-A Court. Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46.1, 46.2.a, and 46.2.b of the American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, para. 17. 2 Approved by the plenary session and published in Official Register N° 477 of December 8, 2004. See IACHR, Case 12.600 Hugo Quintana Coello et al (Supreme Court of Justice) Ecuador (Merits), March 31, 2011, para. 46.