resolve the reported situation. Therefore, the Commission considers that domestic remedies were exhausted, and that the petition meets that requirement established in Article 46.1.a of the Convention. 18. The Commission observes that domestic remedies were exhausted on February 18, 2013 through the judgment issued by the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice, and that the petition was filed on February 5, 2013. Domestic remedies were exhausted at a time when the case was under study for admissibility. Based on the Commission’s doctrine, the analysis on the requirements foreseen in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention must be carried out in the light of the situation existing at the time when the admissibility or inadmissibility of the claim is determined. 7 Consequently, the IACHR declares that this petition meets the requirement established in Article 46.1.b of the Convention. 19. In regard to the alleged threats and harassment against the alleged victims, the Commission takes note of the fact that these incidents were allegedly reported to the Public Prosecutor and that the Commissioner on Human Rights requested the issue of measures of protection for them. However, based on the information submitted by the parties, there is nothing to indicate that the State has undertaken the applicable investigation procedures to date. Therefore, the IACHR concludes that the exception regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies is applicable in the instant case, in accordance with Article 46.2.c of the Convention. Additionally, given the context and the characteristics of the instant case, the Commission believes that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time and the admissibility requirement concerning timeliness must be declared met. VII. ANALYSIS OF COLORABLE CLAIM 20. Considering the elements of fact and law filed by the parties, and the nature of the matter brought to its attention, the Commission establishes that, if proven, the alleged victims’ purported arbitrary removal from office as justices of the Constitutional Chamber of the Honduran Supreme Court of Justice, through an allegedly politically-biased procedure unforeseen in the Constitution and the domestic laws; the alleged threats and harassment; and the lack of subsequent judicial protection all could establish possible violations of Articles 5 (Humane Treatment), 8 (Fair Trial), 9 (Freedom from Ex Post Facto Laws), 23 (Participation in Government), 25 (Judicial Protection) and 26 (Progressive Development) of the American Convention, in connection with Articles 1.1. (Obligation to Respect Rights) and 2 (Domestic Legal Effects), to the detriment of the alleged victims. 21. As for the claim concerning the alleged violation of Article 11 (Privacy) of the American Convention, the Commission observes that the allegations filed by the petitioners are not sufficient for considering prima facie its violation. VIII. DECISION 1. To declare the instant petition admissible in relation to Articles 5, 8, 9, 23, 25 and 26 of the American Convention, in relation to Articles 1.1 and 2 thereof; and 2. To find the instant petition inadmissible in relation to Article 11 of the American Convention; 3. To notify the parties of this decision; to continue with the analysis on the merits; and to publish this decision and include it in its Annual Report to the General Assembly of the Organization of American States. Approved by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on the 17th day of the month of July, 2018. (Signed): Margarette May Macaulay, President; Esmeralda E. Arosemena Bernal de Troitiño, First Vice 7 IACHR, Report No. 15/15, Petition 374-05. Admissibility. Members of the Trade Union of Workers of the National Federation of Coffee Growers of Colombia. Colombia. March 24, 2015, par. 39. IACHR, Report No. 4/15, Admissibility, Petition 582/01, Raúl Rolando Romero Feris, Argentina, January 29, 2015, par. 40. 5