satisfied.5 The IACHR has held on other occasions6 that if the alleged victim pursued the matter through any valid and appropriate alternatives under domestic law and the State had the opportunity to remedy the issue within its own jurisdiction, the purpose of the international rule would have been met. 38. The Commission finds that in this specific the petition for a constitutional remedy filed by the alleged victim was, in principle, suitable for resolving the legal situation that was alleged to have been a violation of the petitioner’s constitutional rights. The domestic courts accepted jurisdiction to hear and decide the case, and in fact did so, acknowledging their aptness to protect the legal status alleged to have been violated. Consequently, it can be considered an appropriate remedy for purposes of determining compliance with the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in this case.7 39. With respect to the alleged victim’s opportunity to file a civil action in order to ensure pecuniary reparation for the parts of the amparo judgment that were adjudicated in his favor, it bears repeating that remedies designed to guarantee compensation—such as a civil action—are not per se an effective and suitable remedy for the comprehensive reparation of that violation, and are not necessary for the exhaustion of domestic remedies. 8 In addition, with respect to the possibility of filing a noncompliance action, the Commission observes that this judicial remedy was introduced in the Ecuadorian legal system as a result of the 2008 constitutional amendment. In other words, it was not available to the alleged victim at the time the relevant facts of this case took place.9 40. The Commission concludes that, for purposes of admissibility, the August 28, 2002 Constitutional Court decision adjudicating the alleged victim’s petition for a constitutional remedy exhausted the domestic remedies, thereby meeting the requirement of Article 44 of the Convention. The adherence of the amparo decision to the American Convention must be examined at the merits phase of this case. 41. Finally, the Commission observes that several cases were brought against the petitioner subsequent to his filing of the petition and his departure from Ecuador, which he believes have the sole purpose of punishing him for his denunciation of corruption (supra paras. 17-18). The petitioner stated that he presented defense arguments in these proceedings through a legal representative, to no avail. Nevertheless, he alleges that given his refugee status and the threats received by his legal representative, he was prevented from filing all of the judicial remedies available at the domestic level. The State did not make reference to these judgments. The IACHR takes note of these legal actions, which will be examined at the merits phase of this case, taking account of their development and supposed connection with the facts alleged in the petition for a constitutional remedy, as well as the effect that exile may have had on the alleged victim’s ability to access the justice system. 5 I/A Court H.R., Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, para. 64. See also, ECHR, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, 26 October 2000, para. 152; & Selmouni v. France, no. 25803/94 de 28 July 1999, para. 74. 6 See IACHR, Report No. 40/08 (Admissibility), Petition 270-07, I.V. v. Bolivia, June 23, 2008, para. 70. IACHR, Report No. 57/03 (Admissibility), Petition 12.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz v. Chile, October 10, 2003, para. 40. 7 See IACHR. Report No. 97/06. Petition 2611-02. Admissibility. José Gerson Revanales. Venezuela. October 23, 2006. Available at: http://www.IACHR.oas.org/annualrep/2006sp/Venezuela2611.02sp.htm 8 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Rochela Massacre v. Colombia. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of May 11, 2007. Series C No. 163, para. 220; See also, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Ituango Massacres v. Colombia. Judgment of July 1, 2006 Series C No. 148, para. 340; & Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre v. Colombia. Judgment of January 31, 2006. Series C No. 140, para. 209. 9See: Case of Mejía Idrovo v. Ecuador. Merits. Judgment of July 5, 2011. Series C No. 228, para. 33, p. 10.