57. In that note the Government was asked to take the precautionary measures needed to prevent the victim from being stripped of his nationality, so that he might be regarded as a citizen in the legal action he has brought, thereby avoiding irreparable harm to him. 58. The Peruvian State replied to the Commission by stating that the case was being heard by the courts and that under the Constitution no authority may seize itself of matters already being heard by the courts. Peruvian domestic law provided adequate tools to protect those rights, such as amparo, and that in fact the victim had requested a similar precautionary measure, which was being decided by the courts. 59. The Government's refusal and the judicial system's delay in ruling on this case, place the petitioner in a defenseless situation and have thus far been ineffective in avoiding harm to the victim, although eventually everything might well be settled and any wrong done by the regular courts might eventually be fully righted. That could happen with the ruling to be handed down by the Constitutional Court. 60. The Peruvian State has not taken any precautionary measure to maintain the victim's status quo until such time as the merits of the case are settled in the national courts. Peru's lower courts have refused Mr. Ivcher's application seeking precautionary measures; when that ruling was appealed, the Superior Court declared all proceedings conducted thus far to be null and void which, the petitioner argues, has delayed the proceedings by approximately four months. The conclusion drawn from these facts is that the domestic remedies have been neither swift nor effective in preventing harm of such severity. This harm becomes greater with the passage of time, given the nature of the rights involved, since the victim has been severed from his employment as chairman of Frecuencia Latina Channel 2 television. The fact that harm has materialized in the interim, before the domestic courts handed down a final ruling on the applications filed seeking writs of amparo, demonstrates how slow and ineffective the remedies in this case have been, and gives the Commission grounds to declare the case admissible. 61. As for the passive legitimation, because Peru is a State party to the American Convention, having ratified it on July 28, 1978, the Commission is competent to take up the present case. VI. CONCLUSIONS 62. The Commission concludes that the petition satisfies the admissibility requirements established in Article 46 of the American Convention. 63. As for the Peruvian State's objections asserting that the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted, no credible evidence has been shown during the proceedings, especially during the hearings before the Commission in October 1997 and February 1998, to demonstrate that effective domestic remedies do exist. Therefore, the Commission considers that in the instant case, the exceptions established in article 46(2) (a), and (c) of the American Convention on Human Rights apply; hence, the remedies under domestic law need not be exhausted for the Commission to take up the petition. 64. The foregoing notwithstanding, the Commission might eventually declare the petition inadmissible if, when examining the merits of the case, it finds some change in circumstances, which includes the possibility of full reparations to the victim. 65. Hence, the Commission declares the instant case admissible although it will re-visit the issues in greater depth when examining the merits of the case. 66. To publish the present admissibility report in its Annual Report to the OAS General Assembly. 8