the constitutional amparo process. 24 Therefore, the preliminary objection was filed at the proper procedural moment, although at that time the State only referred to the amparo process as the appropriate remedy that should have been exhausted. 25. Based on the foregoing, the Court notes that, although the constitutional amparo could also have been a suitable remedy for the alleged violations suffered by Mr. Olivera, he made use of administrative and judicial proceedings to address his claim regarding the unequal treatment he allegedly received from a company due to his sexual orientation, until the cassation appeal filed before the Permanent Constitutional and Social Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice was declared inadmissible. The Court recalls that it is not necessary to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to all or any of the available remedies but that, in accordance with this Court’s jurisprudence, “the remedies that must be exhausted are those that are appropriate in the particular situation of the alleged human rights violation,” 25 as occurred in the present case. 26. The Court further notes that the violation of the right not to be discriminated against is closely connected to other rights invoked (honor and dignity, personal liberty and freedom of expression), and that it is unreasonable to require the exhaustion of domestic remedies separately and autonomously for each of the effects derived from the main violation. Thus, the remedy used by Mr. Olivera was appropriate to protect the legal situation allegedly infringed. Consequently, the Court dismisses this preliminary objection. 24 Cf. Report No. 113-2013-JUS/PPES of the Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office of July 15, 2013 (evidence file, folio 234), Report No. 41-2014-JUS/PPES of the Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office of March 17, 2014 (evidence file, folios 604 to 605), and Report No. 059-2016-JUS/CDJE-PPES of the Specialized Public Prosecutor’s Office of April 8, 2016 (evidence file, folios 645 to 647). 25 Cf. Case of Escher et al. v. Brazil. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of July 6, 2009. Series C No. 200, para. 38, and Case of Cortez Espinoza v. Ecuador, supra, para. 24. 11