3 10. As to the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, Mr. Cordero Bernal contended that on September 6, 1996 he filed an amparo suit requesting that Decision No. 088-96PCNM be vacated. He noted that on November 27, 1996, the amparo petition was found inadmissible by the Special Court of Public Law for Lima, and that said ruling was upheld in a judgment of the Transitory Corporative Chamber Specialized in Public Law of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima on September 24, 1997. He added that on May 8 1997 the Constitutional Court found his amparo claim groundless. Based on the submissions, said judgment was served on Mr. Cordero Bernal on July 31, 1998. 11. The petitioner stated that in addition to the disciplinary proceedings, he was charged for crimes against the administration of justice for aiding in the escape of criminal offenders (encubrimiento personal) and malfeasance in office (prevaricato). He noted that on June 21, 2005, he was acquitted by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huanuco and that, on September 1, 2005, said decision was upheld on appeal. 12. Lastly, the petitioner alleged that the State is responsible for violation of the right to work and labor stability and claimed that Peru has the obligation to redress the damages caused by his arbitrary dismissal. B. Position of the State 13. The State’s account of the outcome of the disciplinary proceeding, the amparo petition, and the criminal proceeding for crimes against the administration of justice, is similar to that of the petitioner. It submitted copies of the principal rulings that were handed down over the course of each proceeding. It noted that the May 8, 1998 judgment of the Constitutional Court found that Decision No. 008-96-PCMN had been adopted in strict adherence to the law and in the context of a disciplinary proceeding in which the alleged victim could have freely exercised his right to a defense. 14. As to the admissibility requirements, the State argued that Mr. Cordero Bernal should have “filed a labor suit or a compliance action to compel fulfillment of the law under the Peruvian Constitution (acción de cumplimiento) prior to resorting to the Honorable Commission. These remedies provide expeditious proceedings for redressing the alleged violations of Mr. Cordero Bernal’s rights.” Accordingly, Peru argued that the petition should be found inadmissible, inasmuch as it does not fulfill the requirement set forth in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. 15. Copies of documentary evidence submitted by the State show that, on July 30, 1997, the Executive Commission of the Public Prosecutors Office received a criminal complaint lodged by the Head of the Judicial Oversight Office (OCMA) against Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal for the crimes of malfeasance in office (prevaricato) and aiding in the absconding of criminal offenders (encubrimiento personal). That information indicates that on May 26, 1998, the First Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huanuco instituted criminal proceedings. Following several convictions that were subsequently overturned in the court of appeals, on June 21, 2005, the 2nd Criminal Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Huanuco “[acquitted] defendant Héctor Fidel Cordero Bernal of the charges leveled against him for crimes against the administration of justice in aiding in the absconding of criminal offenders and malfeasance in office.” According to the submissions, said decision was upheld in the highest appellate court on September 1, 2005. 16. Lastly, the State claimed that the factual account set forth in the petition does not tend to establish a violation of the rights protected in the Convention and requested the IACHR to find the complaint inadmissible based on Article 47(b) of the above-cited instrument.