matters of public security, by way of complementing the efforts made by the Congress in reforming the Constitution and issuing specific laws to afford more security to the citizens.” It submits that the Committee’s report established that the constitutional complaint filed against the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption was resolved on November 27, 2012, when said law was no longer in force. In this regard, it remarks that Decree 89-2012 concerning the Special Law to Purge the Police Force of Corruption was effective from May 25, 2012 to November 25, 2012. Therefore, the Committee considered that the Constitutional Chamber’s resolution was incoherent with the security policy implemented by the Executive and Legislative Branches, and that it entailed serious damages for the State for it meant a setback in the progress achieved in the fight against crime and thus put at risk the security of people and their property. 12. It claims that several representatives believed that the conduct of the justices of the Constitutional Chamber was manifestly contrary to the State’s public interest, and that, as a result, they lodged a motion requesting that these be immediately removed from office. It submits that afterward the judicial vacancies were filled pursuant to the domestic rules. 13. Lastly, the State affirms that the processing and the resolution of the constitutional appeal and the appeal for review were done in full observation of the rights of access to justice and due process, without any limitations on the alleged victims. VI. PETITION ANALYSIS OF EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE 14. The petitioners indicate that domestic legal remedies were exhausted through the Supreme Court’s resolution of February 18, 2013, by which the appeal for review was settled. For its part, the State did not submit any observation on the exhaustion of domestic remedies or contested the petitioners’ claim on that respect. 15. The requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, set forth in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention, establishes that remedies generally available and appropriate in the domestic legal system must be pursued first. Such remedies must be secure enough; that is, accessible and effective in resolving the situation in question. The IACHR has established that the requirement to exhaust all domestic remedies does not necessarily mean that alleged victims are obliged to exhaust all remedies at their disposal. If an alleged victim pursued the matter through one of the valid and appropriate options in accordance with the domestic legal system, and the State had the opportunity to remedy the matter in its jurisdiction, the objective of international law has been achieved. 5 16. The Commission takes into account that article 183 of the Political Constitution of Honduras recognizes the right to file constitutional appeals as a constitutional safeguard for the restoration of rights. 6 Moreover, under article 42 of the Law on Constitutional Justice, a constitutional appeal is applicable against resolutions, actions and decisions issued by any of the State Branches. And pursuant to article 120 of said instrument decisions unanimously adopted by the Constitutional Chamber or the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice can only be challenged through appeals for review. 17. In the instant case, the alleged victims filed a constitutional appeal on December 12, 2012 to challenge the dismissals ordered by the Congress, and on February 6, 2013 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice rejected it. Then they presented an appeal for review that the same authorities dismissed on February 18, 2013. Accordingly, the Commission believes that the remedies filed by the petitioners were appropriate to 5 IACHR, Report No. 67/12 (Admissibility), Petition 728-04, Rogelio Morales Martínez, Mexico, July 17, 2012, par.34. IACHR, Report No. 16/18. Admissibility. Victoria Piedad Palacios Tejada de Saavedra. Peru. February 24, 2018, par. 12. 6 Article 183. The State recognizes the guarantee of constitutional protection. Therefore, any person or anyone on behalf of him or her has the right to file a constitutional appeal: 1. For the preservation or the restoration of the rights and safeguards established in the Constitution; and 2. For establishing, in specific cases, that a law, resolution or decision issued by the State does not oblige an appellant or is applicable in view of its violation, restriction or distortion of any of the rights recognized in this Constitution. 4