José Castro Ballena, Luz Angélica Soria Cañas, Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez, and María Gracia Barriga Oré (P 157-99) 27. The State alleged that José Castro Ballena was hired in the office of legislator Luz Doris Sánchez Pinedo from August 2000 to July 2001, and in March and April 2002, for a total of 12 months, in a position of trust. It indicated that María Gracia Barriga Oré has been working as a permanent employee of the Congress of the Republic since August, 1995. 28. The State indicated that Luz Angélica Soria Cañas and Dusnara Amelia Campos Ramírez have been included in the National Registry of Irregularly Dismissed Workers, and that both opted for the benefit of economic compensation. The State attached copies of receipts showing the payment of such compensation, issued by the Ministry of Labor and Job Promotion, in which the signatures of the alleged victims appear. It argued that the motives that gave rise to the claim by the four alleged victims no longer subsist, and it asked the IACHR to declare the archiving of the complaint, in light of Article 48(1)(b) of the Convention. Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya (P 12.214) 29. It its initial communications the State alleged that in the absence of a clarification by the IACHR on the date the petitioner filed his complaint, it should be considered the date of its transmittal by this international body, i.e. October 4, 1999. In this regard, it stated that the petition is covered by the grounds of inadmissibility provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, insofar as notice of the decision of last resort by the Constitutional Court was given to Mr. Canales Huapaya on March 26, 1999; according to the State, he should have filed his complaint with the IACHR by September 26, 1999. 30. In subsequent communications, the State argued that the alleged victim could bring his claims before different judicial bodies, all with jurisdiction, independent, impartial, and respectful of the guarantees of due process. It noted that the Constitutional Court, in deciding, in last resort, the amparo action brought by Mr. Canales Huapaya, considered that it was not possible to reinstate him in his position in the Senate of the Republic, as that legislative chamber ceased to exist with the adoption of the 1993 Constitution. It adduced that one may not seek by means of an amparo action to restore situations which by their nature have become irreparable. 31. The State indicated that a contentious-administrative action, and not an amparo action, was the suitable means for challenging the validity of resolution 1303-B-92-CACL issued by the Administrative Commission. In this respect, it described the case of two former officers of the Congress of the Republic dismissed in late 1992 who had filed contentious-administrative actions and obtained favorable judicial rulings. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 32. The petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petitions indicate as alleged victims natural persons with respect to whom the Peruvian State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the Convention. Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the complaints. 33. The Commission is competent ratione materiae and ratione loci, insofar as the petitions allege violations of rights protected in the American Convention said to have taken place within the territory of a state party to said treaty. 34. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione temporis as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date on which the events alleged in the petitions are said to have taken place. 6