through one of the remedies that could have been appropriate and effective for resolving this type of situation domestically.18 On this point, the Commission finds that the petitioners made use of the action for amparo as a valid means of litigating violations of guarantees and rights set forth in the Constitution. In this regard, the IACHR deems it important to highlight that in Peruvian law said action is viewed as an action for constitutional guarantees19 designed “to return things to their status prior to the violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right.”20 In addition, the Commission highlights that the Law regulating the amparo procedure provides for its admissibility even in those cases in which “the violation or threat is based on a norm that is incompatible with the Constitution.”21 59. In this vein, the Commission understands that the amparo does not include the submission of claims related to questioning or proving the existence of a warranted reason for the dismissals; rather this remedy, as per domestic Peruvian law, can be an ideal remedy when, as in the present case, it is employed in order to verify the existence within the dismissal action of a component that is manifestly incompatible with constitutional rights as determining elements of the same. Therefore, the right to be protected is not the job stability of the worker nor verification of specific labor situations that could be illegal or illicit, but rather whether enjoyment and exercise of their constitutional rights has been affected. 60. In addition, in analyzing the specific circumstances of the case, the Commission notes that the case developed within a context that included establishment of a legal framework that authorized the collective dismissal of thousands of workers through situations that were exceptions to regular labor law with regard to firing and collective dismissals. The Commission also takes into account that the Inter-American Court in its jurisprudence with a similar case which occurred close to the time period of the events of the present case in Peru, stated that with regard to the context of legal impediments and practices to ensure real access to justice, “they [the alleged victims] did not have certainty about the proceedings they could or should resort to in order to claim the rights they considered had been violated.”22 In the case under study, the Commission notes that neither the domestic courts to which the petitioners turned at one point, nor the representatives of the State in their various allegations in processing before the IACHR, stated or indicated what would have been the suitable remedy to be exhausted in domestic law. The Commission must remember that in accordance with the burden of proof applicable in this area, the State alleging failure to exhaust must indicate the domestic remedies that had to be exhausted and supply proof of their effectiveness.23 61. As a result, taking into account the different actions attempted, which included submission of a constitutional motion for amparo that in this case constituted 18 IACHR, Report No. 70/04 (Admissibility), petition 667/01, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al., October 15, 2004, Para. 52; IACHR, Report No. 57/03 (Admissibility), petition 2.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz, Chile, October 10, 2003, Para. 40. 19 Peruvian Constitution of 1993, Title V: Constitutional Guarantees, Art. 200. 20 Law No. 23506 (Art.1). 21 Law. No. 23506 (Art. 3). 22 I/A Court H.R., Case of Dismissed Congressional Employees. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C, No. 158, para. 146. 23 IACHR, Report No. 32/05, Petition 642/03, Admissibility, Luis Rolando Cuscul Pivaral et al. (Persons living with HIV/AIDS) Guatemala, March 7, 2005, paras. 33-35; I/A Court H.R., Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000, Series C No. 66, para. 53; I/A Court H.R., Durand and Ugarte Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of May 28, 1999. Series C No. 50, para. 33; and I/A Court H.R., Cantoral Benavides Case. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of September 3, 1998. Series C No. 40, para. 31. 14