of proven facts. Thus, for example, the State reported that the 15 alleged victims of MEF are on the lists and identified those who accepted benefits. It also indicated that, of the 84 employees dismissed from Petroperú, 34 were on the lists and only 5 of those opted for some kind of benefit. Likewise, it reported that 39 employees dismissed from MINEDU were included on the lists and some of them received benefits. 19. The State said that, as of 2000, various measures were adopted for the purpose of providing reparation to the persons who were dismissed irregularly. In particular, the State referred to Decree Law No. 27803 which established a special program of benefits to which “irregularly dismissed employees could have access” and that the latter could opt for one of the following benefits: reinstatement of their job or relocation; early retirement; financial compensation; and training and job recycling. 20. The State said that many of the alleged victims were hired once again in their workplaces and, in other cases, received monetary compensation. Thus, it indicated that the harm to these persons was repaired. 21. Regarding the alleged failure to provide comprehensive reparation, the State contended that “there are (...) administrative mechanisms in domestic law to adequately channel the claims made by reinstated petitioners.” It added that some of the alleged victims appealed to the Judicial Branch of Government in order to file claims for compensation and reinstatement of salaries for the period during which they were dismissed. It contended that these proceedings are under way. 22. As for the admissibility of case 12.385, the State initially alleged that the domestic courts already ruled about the matter targeted by the complaint without having found any type of harm being done as a result of the dismissal of the alleged victims. In subsequent briefs, the State alleged that it has adopted various measures to provide reparation to the alleged victims, especially on the basis of Law No. 27803. As a result, the State contended that “the present petition does not set forth facts tending to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Convention, because the Peruvian State itself has been taking measures to settle the situation of the (…) petitioners who have been identified by the Special Committees set up by the State as former employees irregularly dismissed.” IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY OF CASE 12.385 – MINEDU A. Jurisdiction ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Commission 23. Article 44 of the American Convention entitles the petitioners to lodge complaints with the Inter-American Commission. The alleged victims are natural persons who were under the jurisdiction of the Peruvian State at the time of the alleged incidents. Therefore the Commission has jurisdiction ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission has jurisdiction ratione loci to examine the petition, because it alleges violations of the American Convention which had taken place in the territory of a State Party to said treaty. Likewise, the IACHR has jurisdiction ratione materiae because the petition refers to the alleged violations of the American Convention. The Commission also has jurisdiction ratione temporis because Peru ratified the American Convention on July 28, 1978 and therefore the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date when the incidents took place. B. Requirements for admissibility 1. Exhaustion of remedies under domestic law 24. Article 46.1.a) of the American Convention provides that, for a petition filed with the InterAmerican to be admissible pursuant to Article 44 of the same instrument, domestic remedies under domestic law must have been attempted and exhausted in line with the generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is aimed at enabling national authorities to hear cases of the alleged violation of a right 4