that is protected and, if appropriate, giving them the opportunity to resolve them before they are heard by an international instance. 25. The Commission observes that the present petition is based on the alleged violation of the guarantees of due process of law and judicial protection in the process that concluded with the dismissal of the alleged victims from their jobs in a state enterprise. Regarding this matter, the Commission finds that the petitioners filed suit for constitutional relief (amparo) as a valid remedy to enter into a litigation for the violation of the guarantees and rights enshrined in the Constitution. Regarding this, as has happened in similar petitions, the IACHR highlights that this proceeding is viewed by Peruvian law as a plea for constitutional guarantees “to reinstate matters as they were prior to the violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right.”6 26. The Commission also highlights that the Law governing proceedings for constitutional relief (amparo) provides for its admissibility even in those cases where “the violation or threat is based on a law that is incompatible with the Constitution.” The Commission observes that this remedy provided a valid way to try to overturn the legal situation that was violated in this case, in connection with alleged violation of the constitutional rights to due process of law, the principle of legality and the right to equality before the law. Regarding this, the Commission observes that the petitioners clearly pointed out to the local courts their wish to be reinstated in their jobs, alleging violations of due process of law and job stability. To that extent, the Commission believes that the purpose of the petition that it is now examining was filed with domestic courts using one of the remedies that could have been suitable and effective to settle this type of situation domestically.7 27. In view of the above, the Commission believes that, in the present case, the petitioners did exhaust in all instances a remedy that was available and suitable to address the situation being reported, and therefore the requirement set forth in Article 46.1 of the American Convention has been met. 2. Deadline for filing the petition 28. Article 46.1.b) of the Convention establishes that, for the petition to be declared admissible, it must be filed within six months as of the date when the interested party was notified of the final judgment that exhausted the remedies under domestic law. In the present case, the Commission observes that the judgment that exhausted domestic remedies was adopted by the Constitutional Court on November 19, 1999. According to the petitioners, this judgment was notified to them on March 8, 2000, which information has not been challenged by the State. In this regard, bearing in mind that the petition was filed on September 8, 2000, the Commission concludes that the petition was filed within the time-limits established in Article 46.1.b of the Convention. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and international res judicata 29. Article 46.1.c) of the Convention provides that the admissibility of petitions is subject to the requirement that the matter “is not pending in any other international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47.d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit any petition that is substantially the same as a prior petition or communication already heard by the Commission or another international body. In the present case, the parties have not shown that there is any of these two circumstances, nor can this be inferred from the record. 6 IACHR, Report No. 55/08, Petition 532-98, Admissibility, Workers Dismissed from Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (ENAPU) , Peru, July 24, 2008, par. 32. 7 IACHR, Report No. 55/08, Petition 532-98, Admissibility, Workers Dismissed from Empresa Nacional de Puertos S.A. (ENAPU) , Peru, July 24, 2008, par. 32. 5