2 alleged violations had not been exhausted, given that the alleged victims should have filed appeals or motions for reversal and, subsequently, motions for cassation and reconsideration of dismissal of appeal, to overturn the judicial decision that had accepted the pleadings on compliance successfully argued by the municipality. The State adds that apart from the remedies mentioned, the petitioners also had recourse to the appeal for protection [recurso de protección] recognized in the Constitution of Chile against acts or omissions that they regarded as violations of their basic rights. 5. With respect to the teachers from the other municipalities who have been named as alleged victims by the petitioners, the State argues that the claim is inadmissible, saying that it is nothing more than generalization. 6. In accordance with Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention, as well as in Articles 30 and 36 of its Rules of Procedure, the Commission, having examined the positions of the parties, decided to declare the petition admissible in relation to the alleged violations of Articles 5 (right to humane treatment), 8(1) (right to a fair trial), 21 (right to property), and 25 (right to judicial protection) in conjunction with 1(1) (obligation to respect rights) and 2 (duty to adopt domestic legal provisions) of the American Convention, but not with respect to Article 26 of that instrument. The Commission also decided to notify the parties of this decision, to publish it, and to include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. II. PROCESSING BY THE COMMISSION 7. The petition was lodged by the petitioners with the Executive Secretariat of the Commission on November 23, 2005. The Commission began to process the petition on May 8, 2006, when it transmitted to the State the relevant parts of the petition and requested it to respond within a period of two months. In a communication of July 27, 2006, the State requested an extension and, by note 273 of August 9, 2006, submitted its observations, which were relayed to the petitioners on August 29. 8. The petitioners presented observations and additional information in communications dated August 8, 2006; February 20, 2007; December 22, 2008; and July 6, 2009, which were duly conveyed to the State. For its part, the State presented additional observations in communications dated April 26, 2007; and August 29, 2008, which were duly transmitted to the petitioners. In a communication of May 18, 2010, the Commission requested additional information from the petitioners regarding exhaustion of domestic remedies in the cases of the municipalities of Chanco, Pelluhue, Parral, Vallenar, and Cauquenes. That information was presented on January 21, 2011, and forwarded to the State for comment on March 22 of that year. 9. On March 10, 2008, in the framework of its 131st regular session, the Commission held a public hearing on this petition, which was attended by both the petitioners and the State. Furthermore, on October 26, 2011, in the course of its 143rd regular session, the Commission held a working meeting with the parties. III. POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES A. The Petitioners 10. According to the petition, under Statutory Decrees 1979 and 1980, on August 19, 1981, the State of Chile transferred all teachers employed at educational facilities that reported to the Ministry

Select target paragraph3