15 66. Lastly, with regard to potential violations of Article 6 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ratified by the State on May 10, 1978, the Commission notes that it is not an approved instrument within the regional sphere of the Inter-American system, notwithstanding, that does not preclude its use as a source of interpretation in examining the instant case, pursuant to Article 29 of the American Convention.9 B. Other Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 67. In order for the IACHR to admit a petition, the requirement of prior exhaustion of available domestic remedies, as prescribed in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, must be met in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 68. In the instant case, the Venezuelan State alleged that the petition at issue does not satisfy this requirement and, therefore, must be found inadmissible. In this regard, the State contended that the alleged victims chose to pursue the amparo remedy for constitutional relief (amparo constitucional), which it claimed is not suitable for the protection of their rights. It further explained that the amparo constitucional remedy, within the Venezuelan legal system, is a prompt and effective tool for the restoration of the infringed constitutional rights “when no brief, summary and effective procedural means exists [that is] equivalent to constitutional protection.” In the opinion of the State, in the case at hand, an expeditious, simple and effective remedy that is capable of restoring the infringed legal right did exist: a claim for unwarranted dismissal before the trial-level labor courts. 69. The petitioners, however, claimed to have exhausted domestic remedies. In support of this, they cite the complaint filed with the Office of the People’s Ombudsman on May 27, 2004, which was closed on August 17 that same year, and the criminal complaint that culminated in a decision to dismiss, which was upheld in an appeal to the TSJ. The petitioners also claimed that on July 22, 2004 they filed for constitutional relief through the amparo constitucional with the labor courts, which was denied on September 9, 2005. The petitioners considered this remedy as suitable, according to Venezuelan legislation in force at the time, in order to demand the enjoyment and exercise of constitutional rights and guarantees. 70. In this particular case, the IACHR must establish whether remedies pursued by the alleged victims in the domestic courts were suitable, as provided for under Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 71. Both the Commission and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have consistently held that the purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, resolve the matter before it is heard in an international venue.10 9 IACHR. Report Nº 38/09. Case 12.670. Admissibility and Merits. National Association of Ex Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al. March 27, 2009. Paras. 68-70. 10 Par. 28. See IACHR, Report No. 25/12 (Inadmissibility), Petition 700-04, Aurora Cortina González v. México, March 20, 2012.