8 provided the guarantee of due process for the alleged victims in the framework of a regular judicial proceeding,” and b) “Even when the lower court judgment (which the petitioners did not challenge) came out against the petitioners, this in no [way] implied that the judicial process that was underway had not been carried out in the framework of a regular process and with respect for the guarantees of due process.” 29. Therefore, the State “observ[ed] with concern the ‘logical’ standard used by the Inter-American Commission on assuming that orders that had not been issued by the Peruvian judicial authorities would be ineffective.” 30. On this point, the Commission highlighted that in its initial communication with the State before the Commission, received on October 4, 2001, the State “expressly indicated that the requirements contemplated in Articles 46(1), clauses a) and b), had been complied with in this case, without making any distinction with regard to the two groups of [alleged] victims.” The Commission added that “at that time, the State did not request [...] that any procedural consideration be granted with regard to the second group of workers’ failure to apply for an appeal remedy” and that, on the contrary, “the State did not consider this fact to be a failure to comply with the requirement that domestic remedies be exhausted.” Therefore, “the Commission consider[ed] that by virtue of the estoppel principle, the State was not authorized to change the position it held in its first response to the Commission, even less so when the petitioners could make certain procedural decisions - like the decision on whether to start a friendly settlement proceeding - based precisely on that position.” The Commission also indicated that the State “did not submit specific arguments on the effectiveness of the remedy it indicates as not exhausted, neither before the Commission nor before the Court,” and added that “the acknowledgment of the State’s international responsibility for violating Article 25 of the Convention is based precisely on the lack of effective domestic judicial procedures available to the [alleged] victims.” 31. According to the Commission, it declared the application admissible taking into consideration “the long period of time that had passed since the filing of the request for amparo and the lower court ruling, and [...] the slim chance that a remedy challenging the above-mentioned judgment could be effective given the case law upheld by the Constitutional and Social Law Chamber with regard to the constitutionality of the retroactive application of Decree 25876.” Therefore, “the Commission consider[ed] that the [argument] submitted by the State [...] in its brief on the admissibility of the case is, in addition to being untimely, inadmissible on its substance.” 32. For his part, the representative indicated that the second group of 48 petitioners took recourse “to the exception contained in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention for the non-exhaustion” of domestic remedies due to the “significant and unjustified delay of five (05) years and seven (07) months before the issuing of the [lower] court ruling, with obviously a much greater delay in store for the final judgment.” The representative also indicated that “under the [d]ictatorship of former President Fujimori [...] obtaining an impartial and independent judicial ruling or [o]rder - much less a [j]udicial [o]rder against the State - was not only highly improbable, but rather impossible.” Finally, the representative indicated that the State’s arguments with regard to this point “have not been submitted [...] as a [p]reliminary [o]bjection of lack of jurisdiction due to an alleged lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies.” 33. With regard to this, even though the submission of a preliminary objection is not at issue, the Tribunal notes that in a separate case against Peru, it indicated that: each act of acknowledgment made by [that State, both domestically and] before the Commission created estoppel. Therefore, by admitting the legitimacy of the claim asserted in the proceeding before the Commission through a unilateral juridical act of acknowledgement, Peru is barred from adopting a contradictory position thereafter. The