7 27. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of remedies available in the domestic jurisdiction in keeping with generally accepted principles of international law, as a requirement for admitting claims on the alleged violation of the American Convention. 28. Article 46(2) of the Convention provides that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies does not apply when: a) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; 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. As the Inter-American Court has established, whenever a state alleges the failure to exhaust domestic remedies by the petitioners, it has the burden of showing that the remedies that have not been exhausted are “adequate” to cure the violation alleged, i.e. that the function of those remedies within the domestic legal system is suitable to protect the legal situation infringed.15 29. The petitioners argue that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies was met with the amparo judgment of the Constitutional Court of February 4, 2002. They argue that the administrative act of discharge is a consequence of the resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone of January 17, 2002, against which the contentious-administrative remedies would have been ineffective, considering the limitation on subject matter established in Article 6(c) of the Law on Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction. They allege that the remedies against the resolution of the Court of Law of the Fourth Military Zone were exhausted and that so long as it continues to be in force, any challenge of other acts that stem from it would be totally ineffective and irrelevant. 30. For its part, the State argues that the petitioners’ claim does not satisfy the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, provided for at Article 46(1) of the American Convention given that there were contentious-administrative remedies that would have been brought against the administrative act that decreed the discharge of the alleged victim and that they would have been effective for resolving the legal situation of the alleged victim. It also argues that in terms of the alleged discriminatory nature of the military disciplinary rules, the alleged victim had available to him a constitutional motion (acción de inconstitucionalidad) provided for in the Constitution in force at the time of the events. 31. First, one must clarify which domestic remedies need to be exhausted in the instant case. The Inter-American Court has indicated that one must only exhaust remedies adequate for curing the alleged violations. Adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance. If a remedy 15 I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64.