them. Finally, the petitioners pointed out that, because their nonrenewal had the effect of making it impossible for them to be reinstated into the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s Office, this ruling exerted the same impact as if they had been the targets of a disciplinary penalty. 11. All the petitioners alleged that the impossibility of filing appeals against the decision of nonrenewal makes the exception to the exhaustion of remedies under domestic law applicable, as provided for in Article 46.2 a) of the American Convention. 2. Specific allegations Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy (P-320-03) 12. The present petition was received by the IACHR on May 6, 2003 and was forwarded to the State on July 25, 2012. The additional observations and information submitted by the parties were forwarded, respectively, by the Commission. 13. The petitioner alleged that, in the framework of the process of evaluating and renewing judges and prosecutors, on November 20, 2002, the Plenary of the CNM had decided to not renew his position as Specialized Civil Judge of the Cono Norte of Lima. He indicated that, by Resolution No. 500-2002-CNM of the same date, his appointment had been terminated and his title withdrawn. 14. Finally, he alleged that, although the exception indicated in Article 46.2 a) of the American Convention is applicable to his case, the remedies under domestic law had been exhausted as a result of the judgment of the Constitutional Court of July 15, 2003, whereby the appeal on constitutional grounds filed for the complainant’s irregular termination as a result of CNM’s resolution had been ruled inadmissible. Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna (P-948-04) 15. The petition was filed by Walter Antonio Valenzuela on September 27, 2004, and it was forwarded to the State on May 6, 2009. The additional observations and information submitted by the parties were duly forwarded, respectively, by the Commission. 16. The petitioner alleged that he began his career in the Judiciary with the rank of Judge of the Third Lower Court of Justice of the Peace of Surco and Surquillo on January 10, 1985 when the Political Constitution of Peru of 1979 was in force and when its Article 242, subparagraph 2, guaranteed his tenure in the judicial service until he reached the age of 70. He indicated that he had been called by the National Judicial Council by means of proceedings No. 0002-2002-CNM in his capacity as Specialized Judge of the Court District of Lima to an evaluation and renewal process reintroduced by the 1993 Constitution, as a result of which he believed that said call would make the new Constitution’s application retroactive, in violation of Article 9 of the American Convention. He pointed out that he had not submitted to this evaluation and renewal process because he considered that submitting to it would entail a waiver of his labor rights. 17. Regarding this, he pointed out that, on June 20, 2002, he had filed an appeal on constitutional grounds against this invitation; nevertheless he indicated that the National Judicial Council had continued the process of evaluation and had decided not to renew him in his absence, a decision that indicates that it was not substantiated. He indicated that the appeal on constitutional grounds that he filed had been dismissed in the last instance by the Constitutional Court on January 9, 2004, a ruling that had been notified to him on March 27 that same year.