8 Worker I in the Ministry that is being challenged; subsequently, with aims to fill the vacant post, an outside competitive process was initiated in which the servant Guevara Díaz had full opportunity to participate, for which were applied special and specific tests because of his disability, in fulfillment of current law, tests that were in fact evaluated by the psychologist of the Technical Unit for Medical Services in that Ministry. The appellant achieved eligibility to hold the position and to participate fully in the selection of the candidate who would hold that position in question, having made it onto the list of candidates. From this we deduce that the appellant had the same conditions of access to the job he wanted as did the other candidates, and the procedure does not reveal any acts that could be considered discriminatory against him. Though it is accurate that there is a note by the head of the maintenance division of the Finance Ministry, in which are mentioned the disability problems suffered by the appellant, this Court has heard the statement under oath (under penalty of law) that the selection of the servant to occupy the vacant post was made prior to the aforementioned note and that the note in no way influenced the choice of the appropriate person for the position. This being the case, and in accordance with the pondered judgment of this Constitutional Court, the constitutional amparo appeal is exhausted in the determination of equal participation by those interested in being on the list, and it is not incumbent to review the legality, timeliness, or convenience of the decision by the competent bodies in the selection itself, which is carried out in the exercise of discretionary powers.”17 31. In this regard, the IACHR considers it important to underscore that the amparo appeal, as conceived by jurisprudence in Costa Rica, is an action for constitutional guarantees that aims to “maintain or reestablish the enjoyment of rights enshrined in the Constitution, as well as those that are fundamental in character, established in international human rights instruments”. 18 The Commission further emphasizes that Law No. 7135 of Constitutional Jurisdiction of Costa Rica indicates that the amparo appeal guarantees fundamental rights and liberties, except for those protected by the appeal for habeas corpus, and has standing “against any provision, agreement, or resolution and, generally, against any action, omission, or simple material act not founded in an effective administrative act, by public servants or bodies that have violated, are violating, or threaten to violate any of those rights. The amparo appeal will have standing not only in response to arbitrary acts, but also in response to actions or omissions based on rules that have been incorrectly interpreted or improperly applied.” 32. The Commission observes that in this case the legal benefit sought through the amparo appeal was the enjoyment and exercise of the right to equality and non-discrimination, which were considered to have been violated in the process leading up to the termination of the alleged victim. Furthermore, the IACHR observes that the Constitutional Bench heard and ruled on these aspects, not having declared the amparo appeal groundless but rather having declared it to be out of order, subsequent to an analysis of the merits of the contested matter. In summary, it is the Commission’s understanding that the petitioner filed an appeal that could have proven appropriate for remedying the claim. 33. Furthermore, as regards the lack of filing an appeal in the ordinary labor court, the IACHR deems it important to reiterate that the requirement that all domestic legal remedies be exhausted doesn't mean that alleged victims have to obligation to exhaust all remedies at their 17 18 Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica, Resolution No. 2005-01424, 14 February 2005. Article 48 of the Constitution of Costa Rica sets forth that: “Every person has the right to appeal for habeas corpus to guarantee his/her personal freedom and integrity, and to the amparo appeal to maintain or reestablish the enjoyment of other rights enshrined in this Constitution, as well as those that are fundamental in character established in the international human rights instruments that are applicable to the Republic. Both appeals are of the jurisdiction of the Bench indicated in Article 10.