17 76. According to the case file, this decision was appealed and on September 9, 2005, the Third Superior Circuit Court for Labor Matters of the Judicial District of the Metropolitan Area of Caracas denied the appeal and upheld the trial court judgment, thus exhausting any chance to appeal the judicial decision. 77. Based on the foregoing, the Commission notes that the constitutional Amparo remedy was actually found admissible by the domestic courts, pursuant to legislation in force in the State and its legal precedents, and these courts ruled on the merits of the claim. With regard to these facts, which are part of the evidence in the case file of the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties. Therefore, it is evident that the domestic courts accepted jurisdiction to hear the case and actually did so, recognizing their own suitability in order to protect the legal situation that was allegedly infringed. 78. In fact, Article 1 of the Organic Law of Amparo regarding Constitutional Rights and Guarantees establishes that: “Any natural person inhabiting the Republic, or legal entity with a domicile in it [the Republic], may request before the competent Tribunals amparo relief provided for in Article 49 of the Constitution, for the enjoyment and exercise of the constitutional rights and guarantees, even those fundamental rights of the human person that do not expressly appear in the Constitution, for the purpose of the infringed legal situation, or the most similar situation to it, to be immediately restored."17 79. While the Supreme Court of Justice of Venezuela has held that in the case of what is apparently an ordinary appeal, but that what is being pursued is fundamentally the protection of constitutional rights, amparo proceedings are in order as the suitable mechanism of defense. Along these same lines, it has stated that the amparo action may be brought immediately, “without the available procedural means or remedies having been exhausted,” and that it [the amparo action] shall be in order “when it can be surmised from the circumstances of fact or law that surround the claim, that the use of ordinary procedural means are insufficient to restore the enjoyment of the infringed legal right.”18 80. Based on the foregoing reasoning, the Commission finds that in the specific case, the constitutional amparo remedy pursued by the alleged victims fulfilled the reasonable requirements of admissibility established in domestic legislation and, as such, was capable of remedying the legal situation that was alleged to violate the constitutional rights of the victims. Accordingly, it can be regarded as an adequate and sufficient remedy for the purpose of determining compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies.19 Regarding the possibility that the alleged victims had to file a suit for unwarranted dismissal before the labor courts, as was argued by the State, it must be reiterated that when more than one adequate remedy is available, the alleged victims need not exhaust but one of them, for the purposes of Article 46.1.a of the Convention. 17 Congress of the Republic of Venezuela. Organic Law of Amparo regarding Constitutional Rights and Guarantees. Official Gazette Nº 34.060 September 27, 1988. 18 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Circuito Teatral de los Andes, CA. v. Frist Trial Court for Civil and Commercial Matters of the Judicial District of the State of Merida. September 28, 2001. Pg. 4. Available at: http://www.tsj.gov.ve/decisiones/scon/Septiembre/1809-280901-00-2841.htm 19 See IACHR, Report Nº 97/06. Petition 2611-02. Admissibility. José Gerson Revanales. Venezuela. October 23, 2006. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2006sp/Venezuela2611.02sp.htm