appeal with the Constitutional Court, which was ruled inadmissible on December 20, 2007, a decision that was notified to her on March 19, 2008. That appeal was dismissed because it had been filed on December 11, 2006, six years after CNM’s resolution, which according to the Constitutional Court had incurred the statute of limitations because the 60-day time-limits provided for in Article 44 of the Constitutional Proceedings Code had expired. B. Position of the State 1. Common allegations 27. The State contended that the renewal processes were characterized by unsubstantiated resolutions and that personal interviews were given only for those judges who expressly requested them and with those the Plenary CNM called ex officio. It indicated that, as of 2003, jurisprudence began to break away from the provisions set forth in the Constitutional Proceedings Code and the Basic Law of the National Judicial Council, which led to applications different from the law which had led to the violations that resulted in the filing of international complaints. 28. It also alleged that, progressively, national legislation had been adjusted to constitutional regulations and principles and to the American Convention. It especially indicated that the regulatory scenario had been amended by the enactment of the Constitutional Proceedings Code, the General Administrative Procedures Law, Law No. 27444, and the Regulations for the Evaluation and Renewal of Judges of the Judiciary and the Prosecutors of the Attorney General’s Office, where it was recognized that CNM’s final resolutions had to be substantiated. In addition, it pointed out that the CNM had provided for a special review remedy that would have provided a simple and rapid mechanism for reviewing processes of evaluating and ratifying judges. 29. Nevertheless, it indicated that, by Supreme Resolution No. 261-20005-JUS of December 16, 2005, it had authorized the head of the Judiciary to enter into Friendly Settlement Agreements for petitions or cases filed with the IACHR in connection with judges not renewed by the National Judicial Council and that, in the framework of this regulation, it had signed 10 friendly settlement agreements. Nevertheless, the possibility of reaching a friendly settlement agreement for the petitions included in the present report never materialized. 30. Finally, on the one hand, it contends that, in the present case, there is no longer a matter of dispute as, in terms of domestic law, legislative amendments had been made to the regulatory framework that had breached the rights protected by the American Convention, and a simple and effective mechanism had been established to provide comprehensive reparations for the violations reported by the petitioner(s). On the other hand, the State alleged that all of the judges and prosecutors who had not been renewed at that time should have filed appeals on constitutional grounds, taking into account that, in some cases, that appeal was successful. 31. Regarding three of the petitions included in the present report, the State submitted specific additional allegations. 2. Specific allegations Atilio Regis Canelo Ramírez (P-822-08) 32. The State pointed out that the alleged victim did not file any appeal on constitutional grounds against Resolution No. 159-20002-CNM whereby it was decided not to renew his employment. It indicated that the Constitutional Court admitted a series of complaints filed by judges and prosecutors who had not been renewed and that, in some of these cases, these complaints had been heard and had succeeded, and therefore the position taken by the petitioner that he had not filed an appeal on constitutional grounds because appeals filed by other judges had not been successful is unacceptable.