40. Finally, the Commission has jurisdiction ratione materiae, because as will be explained in the characterization section below, the petitions considered in the present report allege facts that could tend to establish a violation of the rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 41. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention provides that, for a petition filed with the InterAmerican Convention to be admissible in conformity with Article 44 of the Convention, it is necessary to have filed and exhausted remedies under domestic law in line with generally recognized principles of international law. Nevertheless, subparagraphs a) and b) of Article 46.2 of the Convention establish that said requirement shall not be applicable when “the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated” or when “the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them.” In that respect, the Inter-American Court has established that when, for reasons of fact or law, remedies under domestic law are not available to the petitioners, they are exempt from the obligation of exhausting them. 42. In response to the allegations by the parties, the Commission observes that, when the resolutions that ordered nonrenewal of the petitioners were issued, the Political Constitution of Peru, the Basic Law of the National Judicial Council, and Regulations for the Evaluation and Ratification of Judges and Prosecutors (Resolutions No. 043-2000-CNM and No. 241-2002-CNM) all made it impossible to file administrative or judicial appeals against the decisions taken by the National Judicial Council. Despite this, the alleged victim of petition 320-03 filed an appeal on constitutional grounds that was dismissed in the last instance by the Constitutional Court, taking into account the existing legal framework that was already cited. Likewise, the alleged victim of petition 948-04 filed an appeal on constitutional grounds against the call for renewal, which was ruled inadmissible in the last instance of the Constitutional Court, on the basis of the abovementioned legal framework. 43. As for the alleged victims of petitions 739-08 and 1065-08, they filed appeals on constitutional grounds, on the basis of the change in legislation and jurisprudence that took place on December 1, 2004 and August 12, 2005, respectively, which made it possible to file appeals on constitutional grounds against the decisions of the CNM. Thus, the petitioner Jean Aubert Alvarado Díaz filed an appeal on constitutional grounds on December 6, 2006, and the petitioner Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse filed said appeal on December 11, 2006. Nevertheless, when these appeals on constitutional grounds reached the Constitutional Court, the latter dismissed them, indicating that when they were not renewed in July and June 2001, they had lost their status as prosecutors, so that one way or another they were aware of the fact and were legally capable of challenging the termination of their employment, and that therefore by filing the appeal on constitutional grounds six years later, “the statute of limitations had come into effect, because the time-limits set forth in Article 44 of the Constitutional Proceedings Code, that is, 60 days, had been by far exceeded. 44. The Commission found that, at the time that CNM issued the resolutions of nonrenewal between 2001 and 2002, there was a ban in the legal framework on filing judicial and administrative appeals against the decisions taken by the CNM. Therefore, the alleged victims did not benefit from a rapid and effective remedy to challenge their nonrenewal. Furthermore, although, as alleged by the State, the legislation and jurisprudence changed to make it possible to file appeals on constitutional grounds against the decisions taken by the CNM, this did not provide the already affected parties the possibility of benefiting from said changes. Indeed, the Constitutional Court established, with respect to the alleged victims of petitions 739-08 and 106508, that they should have filed an appeal on constitutional grounds within 60 days following notification of the resolution of nonrenewal by the CNM, although at that time the judicial, constitutional, legal and jurisprudence framework banned said possibility. 45. With respect to what has been described, the IACHR considers that there were reasons of law why remedies under domestic law were not available to the petitioners, as a result of which the latter are