Civil Service Office within three days after notification of the decision being challenged. Upon receipt of the submission, the director will refer it immediately to the National Civil Service Board, which must resolve the matter within 30 days. In cases of dismissal only, if the Board does not issue a decision within that time period, the administrative route will be deemed exhausted, and the petition rejected, whereupon the appellants may appeal to the Chambers of Labor and Social Security. Those tribunals shall decide the matter in accordance with normal labor procedures, at a single level of jurisdiction. In other cases covered by this law, the Board must decide any claim within the same period of 30 days, but its resolutions shall be deemed final and not subject to appeal. 20. In light of the foregoing, the victim presented a written challenge to the National Civil Service Office (on May 29, 2000, that office decided that it was not competent to consider the challenge). In view of that denial and pursuant to the procedure set out in Article 80 of the Personnel Regulations of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, on June 20, 2000, the alleged victim filed an appeal with the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Labor and Social Security Matters. That regulation provides that: The Human Rights Ombudsmen must settle the appeal for a review within 10 business days of its filing; if the appeal is declared to be groundless or is not settled within the prescribed time, the affected party may appeal to the Chambers of Labor and Social Security within the following five business days. The appeals procedure shall be that established in the Labor Code. 21. On June 26, 2000, the Second Chamber decided that it was not competent to hear the petition, because the Chambers of Labor and Social Security are competent to hear cases only at a single level of jurisdiction, and this is limited to cases of definitive administrative decisions issued by the National Civil Service Board, pursuant to Article 80 of the Civil Service Act. Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez then attempted, in accordance with the Civil Service Act, to challenge the decision to dismiss her. On October 9, 2001, the Constitutional Court declared her constitutional challenge out of order, because the interested party had failed to use the appropriate channels to challenge application of the rules, in the course of which she could have argued the constitutional questions in the appropriate jurisdiction. All the bodies to which she turned, administrative and judicial alike, decided against Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez, on the grounds that they lacked competence to decide on the matter. 22. Given the outcome of the appeals and representations made by the victim before the authorities, the Commission concludes that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 46.1 of the Convention, has been satisfied. 2. Time period for submission of the petition 23. In accordance with Article 46.1 (b) of the Convention, a petition must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his or her rights was notified of the final judgment at the domestic level. This complaint was submitted on July 15, 2002, within six months following the decision of the Constitutional Court of October 9, 2001, notified to the victim on January 15, 2002, that decided on the appeal challenging the constitutionality of the rules applied in the case of Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez. Consequently, this requirement has been satisfied. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 24. The record contains no indication that the matter is pending in another international proceeding, or that it duplicates a petition already considered by this or another international body. Consequently, the requirements stipulated in Article 46.1 (c) and in Article 47 (d) of the Convention are satisfied. 4. Characterization of the facts alleged 4