7 15 principles of international law. The prior exhaustion requirement applies when the national system does in fact offer available recourses that are adequate and effective for remedying the alleged violation. Thus, Article 46.2 stipulates that the requirement need not be observed if the domestic legislation does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right in question, if the alleged victim was denied access to the remedies offered by domestic law, or if there was an unwarranted delay in issuing judgment on those remedies. 26. In the case at hand, the parties disagree on whether this conventional requirement has been met. The State claims that the remedies offered by the domestic jurisdiction were not exhausted. It also indicates that the petitioners filed their claim with the IACHR before the remedy brought to the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) was decided, and that an amparo is the suitable and adequate remedy in the domestic jurisdiction for the protection of the rights allegedly violated. In turn, the petitioners claim that in the present case it is applicable Article 46.2(a) of the American Convention, which establishes an exception to the requirement of exhausting domestic remedies, that is, when national law does not provide due legal process for protecting the right in question. 27. In light of the above, the IACHR considers pertinent to analyze, in the instant case, whether the petitioners should exhaust the remedy with the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) before filing a petition with the Commission and whether they should have lodged an amparo remedy. 28. According to the information available, on June 30, 2010, the alleged victims filed an appeal before the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) to challenge their dismissals, 16 as that body is competent to reinstate them in their positions, and to date, the appeal has not been determined on the merits. The Commission observes that the Reglamento Interno del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Internal Regulation of the Judicial Career Council) establishes specific terms with short extensions. In effect, the domestic norms establish that the Council will call for an audience so the plaintiff and the Dirección de Administración de Personal (Direction of Administration of Personnel) concur to present evidence, which should be examined within the next 15 days. Once the evidence is examined, 17 the Council should issue its resolution within a 5-day term. In this sense, and considering that in the case of two judges, to date there has not been a call for an audience; that in the case of the magistrate Flores Lanza the call for the audience was cancelled; and that in the case of judge López Lone the audience itself was cancelled and there has not been further legal proceedings; the Commission considers that after more than a semester of being filed, the instant remedy does not present signs of effectiveness or prompt resolution with respect to the alleged victims. 29. In addition, the Commission observes the fact that the Council is a dependant body of the CSJ and that two of its five members are part of the CSJ -the organ that dismissed the alleged victims on 18 May 5, 2010-, could influence the effectiveness of the remedy lodged . It is also noted that in the dismissal agreements for the alleged victims it was indicated that the removal would take place in the 15 See: I/A Court H.R., Chaparro-Álvarez and Lapo-Íñiguez v. Ecuador Case. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 21, 2007. Series C No. 170, paragraph 16; I/A Court H. R., Nogueira de Carvalho et al. v. Brazil Case. Preliminary Objections and Merits. Judgment of November 28, 2006. Series C No. 161, paragraph 50; I/A Court H.R., Acevedo Jaramillo et al. v. Peru Case. Judgment of February 7, 2006. Series C No 144, paragraphs 122 et seq.; Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil Case. Preliminary Objection. Judgment of November 30, 2005, Series C No. 139, paragraph 4; etc. 16 The pertinent part of Article 191 of the Reglamento de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial (Regulation of the Law of Judicial Career) establishes that: ”The resolutions of the Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) related to the complaints against dismissals may consist in the confirmation of the removal or the reinstatement of said employee or public official, either to the same position or another of the same level, with the right to receive all salaries accrued since the dismissal (…).” 17 Article 30 of the Reglamento Interno del Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Internal Regulation of the Judicial Career Council). 18 The Reglamento de la Ley de la Carrera Judicial (Internal Regulation of the Judicial Career Council) establishes: “Article 22.- The Consejo de la Carrera Judicial (Judicial Career Council) is a dependant organ of the Supreme Court of Justice. Article 23.- (…) The Council has five (5) permanent members and three (3) substitutes. Permanent members are appointed by the Supreme Court of Justice, and nominated by its President, which presents a list of ten candidates. Two of the permanent members should be magistrates of the Supreme Court of Justice (…).”