2002 No. 2409- 2002-AA / TC. It therefore argued that it was not for the Commission to apply the exception of Article 46(2)(a), considering the fact that the result of the writs of amparo filed by the alleged victims was not favorable to them did not at all imply the absence of a suitable and effective remedy 16. Regarding the appeals filed by the alleged victims, it added the following: a. Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy: obtained a definitive ruling from the Constitutional Court in the context of the amparo process presented on July 15, 2003, after the date of presentation of the petition, therefore the domestic jurisdiction had not been exhausted. In addition, it pointed out that the Commission declared the violation of the principle of legality in the Merits Report, but the alleged victim did not allege impairment of said principle within the writ of amparo filed. b. Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna: filed a writ of amparo that was settled by the Constitutional Court on January 9, 2004 but indicated that the alleged victim did not question the facts and rights related to the duty of substantiation of reasoning. It added that with respect to the principle of legality in the domestic proceedings, it only alleged violations of the retroactivity and legality of the application of the 1993 Constitution and did not make an argument with the approach that was stated by the Commission in the Merits Report. c. Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse: both filed a late application for amparo against the decision not to ratify them, therefore they did not properly exhaust the available remedies. In addition, the State argued that in said amparo applications the violation of the principle of legality was not alleged. 20. In all cases, the State argued that it did not have the opportunity to present the preliminary objection of lack of exhaustion of remedies at the appropriate procedural stage, because in the admissibility stage, the alleged victims did not present allegations related to violations of the principle of legality and did not indicate facts in accordance with the approach taken by the Commission in the Merits Report. It requested that the Court carry out appropriate review of the legality of the Commission's actions on compliance with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies, because it did not correctly apply the application provided for in Article 46(2)(a) of the Convention, which violates the State’s right of defense. 21. Regarding Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the representatives argued that “it is not in dispute that [Mr. Cuya] exercised domestic remedies of writ of amparo, a remedy of appeal against the rejection in limine of that claim and an extraordinary appeal before the Constitutional Court and consequently exhausted the domestic jurisdiction.” They argued that these facts prove that the writ of amparo was neither suitable nor effective. They pointed out that in Mr. Cuya's petition it appears that he was dismissed without knowing if there was an accusation against him, which makes it clear that the State was aware of the alleged victims’ allegations regarding the principle of legality. They added that the preliminary objection, "apart from [...]there being no such difference in approach as [... stated], is thus inconsistent, due to not being raised in a timely manner it becomes late and therefore, it must be rejected due to late submission." 22. Regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, the representatives indicated that the objection raised by the State should be rejected because the alleged victim had exhausted the remedies because he initiated the amparo process before the irregular process, and obtained a judicial decision from the Constitutional Court, almost two years after starting it. They added that the State had not previously raised the argument of due substantiation and its possible connection with the principle of legality, nor is there such a “difference in approach” between what was stated by the Commission and the representatives and, thus, said allegation would be considered as late. 16 In this regard, the State also referred to the ruling of the Constitutional Court of February 11, 2009, File No. 014122007-PA/TC, which refers to a writ of amparo initiated on September 10, 2003 by a former magistrate against the CNM for not deciding to ratify him, in which new criteria were established and the amparo process presented was declared to have merit. 9