for more time than requested and by having appointed Mr. Héctor Cordero Bernal, magistrate of the Fourth Criminal Court, to that judgeship, when according to the order of the Plenary Chamber, he was to appoint the most remote judge, that is, the judge of the Fifth Criminal Court. 29. It underscores that with regard to the alleged coordination between Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez and Mr. Cordero Bernal to release two suspects, the CNM found this argument was not the basis for the request for dismissal, therefore making it accessory information that was not taken into account In addition, it states that in the amparo brought to challenge his sanction, the petitioner indicates that the alleged misconduct of which he is accused is no such thing, asking the constitutional court to act in place of the councilmembers of the CNM, assess the facts, compare them against the misconduct established, and assess the evidence, which is not a job for a constitutional court. 30. It states that the administrative disciplinary process and the criminal process brought against the alleged victim do not address to same set of facts. With regard to the crime of breach of public duty, it states that the fact subject to investigation was the petitioner’s irregular appointment of the substitute judge, a charge for which he was acquitted in a judgment issued March 25, 2003. As far as the crime of obstruction of justice, it involves the unconditional release granted by Mr. Cordero Bernal to two Colombian citizens, allegedly in coordination with the petitioner. He was convicted and later acquitted by the Supreme Court of Justice during a process of judicial review. 31. The State holds that based on the first above-described conduct, the petitioner received a severe administrative sanction that was proportional to the gravity of the infraction committed; and based on the second, he was criminally convicted and later acquitted. It additionally asserts a distinction between criminal and administrative sanctions, as both serve different functions, and full independence is therefore justified, as confirmed by the Peruvian Constitutional Court in its settled caselaw. It therefore concludes that the judicial guarantees set forth in articles 8 and 25 of the Convention have not been violated. III. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence, duplication of proceedings and international res judicata Competence ratione personae: Competence ratione loci: Yes Yes Competence ratione temporis: Yes Yes, American Convention (instrument deposited on July 28, 1978) Competence ratione materiae: Duplication of procedures and international res judicata No B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 32. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention holds that in order for a complaint submitted before the InterAmerican Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, it must have sought and exhausted all domestic remedies, in keeping with generally accepted principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear cases of alleged violations of protected rights and, where appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve them before they are brought before an international authority. 33. In this case, the Commission notes that the petitioner’s claims have to do with two processes. The first involves a administrative disciplinary process that ended in his dismissal from his judgeship. In addition, the alleged victim was also prosecuted criminally and later acquitted, after which he filed a lawsuit seeking damages. 5