RELATION TO THE OBLIGATION TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS AND THE DUTY TO ADOPT PROVISIONS OF DOMESTIC LAW60 A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 84. The Commission maintained that, with regard to the issues on the merits, the alleged victims are in a substantially similar position as the 257 victims in Dismissed Congressional Employees et al. and the three victims in Canales Huapaya et al. and, consequently, argued that the Court’s analysis in those cases apply to these persons. Therefore, under the principles of procedural economy and due process that apply to an issue of general interest that has already been resolved, it determined the international responsibility of the State on the basis of the legal analysis and the articles of the Convention that were applied in those judgments and in the Commission’s Reports on the Merits in those cases and concluded that the State violated the rights set out in Articles 8(1) and 25(1) of the Convention, read in conjunction with the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 thereof, to the detriment of the alleged victims identified in the Report on the Merits. 85. The representatives claimed that the alleged victims were irregularly dismissed in a context in which they lacked access to justice and that the judicial remedies that were available to them to challenge their collective dismissal were uncertain. Consequently, they claimed that the State violated Articles 8(1) and 25(1), read in conjunction with Article 1(1) of the Convention. They also argued that the State, by adopting provisions that legally barred the alleged victims from filing writs of amparo or administrative claims against the results of the evaluation process violated Article 2 of the Convention because it did not take the appropriate measures of domestic law to make effective the rights set out in the Convention. 86. The State argued that it is a mistake for the Commission to base its arguments on a comparison of the present case with the decisions in 2006 and 2015 simply because those also refer to the dismissal of congressional employees. It claimed that the situation of the 20 dismissed congressional workers listed in Petition 725-03 differs from Aguado Alfaro and Canales Huapay because, when the petition was presented, a different norm was in force, which was applied to dismissals beginning in June 2001. In addition, the State argued that, in the former cases, the dismissed workers exhausted domestic remedies, whereas in this case there is no certainty with respect to a group of claimants. In the opinion of the State, an analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies was a requisite for all the dismissed employees. It also claimed that this case cannot be considered similar to those already decided by the Court because the norms in those cases had been modified so that they are not longer necessary and because the State has implemented domestic measures to compensate the employees. 87. The State also questioned that in this case an evaluation was made on the effectiveness of the available remedies when they were not sought by the employees domestically, although, at the time of the events, there were procedural remedies to which the employees had access. With respect to the 20 former employees who presented the writ of amparo, the State argued that the fact that the Constitutional Court’s decision had not been favorable to their interests does not necessarily imply a violation of the rights to due process or to judicial protection. In addition, with respect to this group, the State argued that its response did not occur in a generalized context of a lack of effectiveness of its institutions or the absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality since the decision 60 Articles 8(1) and 25(1), read in conjunction with Articles 1(1) and 2 of the Convention.. 24