Rufino Almeida availed himself of the procedure under Law No. 24,043, with which he waived any type of claim against the State, as established by the law. 8 45. The Commission observes that the subject matter of the instant petition, which falls within its competence, has to do with the alleged discrimination due to the lack of reparations in the context of Law No. 24,043 for the unlawful imposition of the regime of “release-under surveillance” to the detriment of Rufino Almeida and his wife. 46. The Commission notes that in 1995 the alleged victim brought an action against the State for the payment of compensation in the context of under Law No. 24,043. In response, an administrative resolution of 1996 acknowledged compensation was in order only for the 54 days of detention, and denied them compensation corresponding to the alleged “release under surveillance.” In response, Mr. Almeida filed an appeal with the CNACAF,which ratified the earlier decision in 1999. On July 7,1999, Mr. Almeida filed a complaint appeal with the Supreme Court, which was rejected in limine on December 2, 1999. 47. There are many remedies in each system. In this respect, the IACHR recalls that the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies does not mean that the alleged victims have the obligation to exhaust all remedies available to them. 9Both the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the IACHR have held repeatedly that “…the rule that requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies is conceived in the interest of the State, since it seeks to absolve it of the need to respond to an international organ for acts imputed to it before having had an opportunity to remedy them using its own means.” 10 Consequently, if the alleged victim pursued the matter by means of one of the alternatives that was valid and adequate under the domestic legal order, and the state had the opportunity to remedy it in its jurisdiction, the purpose of the international norm is fulfilled. In the instant case, Mr. Almeida presented the claims that are the subject of his petition to the IACHR through a sequence of remedies, reviewed by the judicial branch in multiple forums, and accordingly the requirement has been met. 48. Therefore, given the characteristics of the instant petition, the Commission considers that domestic remedies were exhausted by the judicial resolution of December 2, 1999that dismissed the complaint appeal (recurso de queja). 2. Time for filing the petition 49. The American Convention establishes that for a petition to be admissible by the Commission it must be filed within six months of the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final decision. 50. In this respect, the State argues the petition is time-barred because it was submitted after the six-month period, counted from the decision on the appeal issued by the CNACAF on June 30, 1999. The petitioner has indicated that the notice of the Supreme Court ruling by which the Commission has already established that domestic remedies were exhausted was given on December 28, 1999. The petition was filed on June 27, 2000. The State, for its part, has not called into question the date of notification given. Therefore, the Commission considers that the petition was submitted within the period cited, with which the requirement set out at Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention has been met. Article 9 — The payment of the benefit entails the waiver of any right to compensation for damages due to deprivation of liberty, arrest, being placed at the disposal of the Executive, death or injuries, and shall be grounds for excluding any other benefit or compensation for the same. Law No. 24,043 Granting benefits to persons who were placed at the disposal of the Executive during the state of siege, or who, being civilians, suffered detention pursuant to acts emanating from military tribunals. Requirements.Passed: November 1991.Partially Promulgated: December 23, 1991. 8 9IACHR, Report No. 76/09, Petition 1473-06, Admissibility, Community of la Oroya, Peru, August 5,2009, para.64; IACHR, Report No. 40/08, Petition 270/07.Admissibility, I.V., Bolivia, July 23,2008, para. 70. 10IACHR, Report No. 70/04, Petition 667-01, Admissibility, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al. – Pensioners of EmpresaVenezolana de Aviación VIASA; October 13,2004, para. 52.