had received. The State also reports that she appeared at the Human Resources Unit of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman to sign the official document acknowledging her dismissal on September 26, 2000. 13. The State argues that Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez’ was not tenured in her positions. Her duties had been assigned against the budget for 1999, 2000, and 2001. 14. As to the admissibility of the case, the State argues that the complaint is not admissible, because Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez had access to administrative channels to defend her interests. The State adds that the fact that the steps she took were unsuccessful was not sufficient grounds to claim that her right to a defense was violated. The State also reports that Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez presented her definitive resignation from the position she occupied in the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman on May 18, 2000, and that four days later she withdrew her definitive resignation. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission 15. The petitioners are in principle entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to file a petition with the IACHR. The petition identifies as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom Guatemala undertook to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that Guatemala has been a party to the American Convention since May 25, 1978, the date on which it deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to consider the petition. 16. The Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention that are alleged to have taken place within the territory of a State Party. The IACHR is also competent ratione temporis, insofar as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State at the date on which the acts referred to in the petition are alleged to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, since the petition denounces violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 17. The petitioners argue that the victim pursued the available judicial remedies in order to seek reinstatement in her position, including an appeal to the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Labor and Social Security Matters. The State, for its part, argues that the victim should have attempted to exhaust all remedies available under domestic law, without indicating what those remedies are. 18. The Commission considers that, given the circumstances of the present case, the victim pursued and exhausted the means at her disposal to seek reinstatement in her position, in the wake of proceedings that were conducted without judicial guarantees and protection. Article 46.1 (a) of the Convention stipulates that for a petition to be admitted “the remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” 19. With respect to appropriate remedies, Article 80 of the Civil Service Act 1establishes the procedure for challenging resolutions: Article 80. Procedure. The claims referred to in Article 19 (6) of this law, and the others contained therein, must be pursued in the following manner: the interested party must submit the claims in writing to the director of the National 1 Ley de Servicio Civil, Decreto No. 1748, Guatemala, May 10, 1968 3