consistent with the Constitution.”14 The Commission notes that this appeal constituted a valid means of seeking to redress the legal situation in this case regarding the alleged violation of the constitutional rights to due process, the principle of freedom from ex post facto laws, and the right to equal protection. The Commission observes that the petitioners clearly stated to the local courts their aim to be returned to their positions, alleging violations of due process and job stability. Thus, the Commission finds that the subject of the complaint brought before it was presented to the domestic courts through an ideal, effective domestic remedy for resolving such situations. 15 33. In this regard, it is the Commission’s consideration that in the present case the petitioners exhausted the adequate and effective remedies available to reverse the denounced situation, thereby fulfilling the requirements set forth. In that case, the IACHR considers that under the Convention’s requirements, the present conventional requirement is fulfilled with the exhaustion of the available means of action, without needing to exhaust other remedies that may be available afterwards. 34. As a result, the IACHR finds that in the present case the petitioners pursued the remedies that were available to resolve their situation and therefore finds that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1) of the American Convention was fulfilled. C. Deadline for submission 35. Under Article 46.1 of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted, it must be presented by the stipulated deadline, namely six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment at the national level. This rule guarantees legal certainty and stability once a decision has been taken. 36. In this case, the Commission observes that the judgment that exhausted domestic remedies was handed down by the Constitutional Court on March 3, 1998, and the petitioners were notified on May 6, 1998. 16 The OAS’s office in Peru received the petition on November 2, 1998 and forwarded it to IACHR headquarters that same day. The Commission concludes that the petition was lodged by the deadline set forth in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. D. Duplication of proceedings 37. There is no indication in the file that the petition is pending a decision in another proceeding for international settlement, or that it duplicates a petition that has already been examined by the Commission. Therefore, the requirements set forth in Articles 46(1)(c) and 47(d) of the Convention have been fulfilled. E. Characterization of the facts alleged 38. As the Commission has already indicated in other cases, at this point in the process it is not necessary to determine whether or not there was an actual violation of the American Convention. For the purposes of admissibility, the Commission must simply decide whether the allegations set forth facts that could 14 Law No. 23506 (Art. 3). 15 IACHR, Report No. 70/04 (Admissibility), petition 667/01, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al., Venezuela, October 15, 2004, para. 52; IACHR, Report No. 57/03 (Admissibility), petition 12.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz, Chile, October 10, 2003, para. 40. 16 In consideration of the notice the petitioners contributed as Annex 1-K to their original complaint. 8