24. Moreover, the State maintains that the petitioners should have exhausted the contentiousadministrative remedy that is appropriate for challenging administrative regulations, measures or decisions that violate a right or immediate interest of the petitioner, or that violate private rights, provided the offending regulation, measure or decision was approved as a consequence of a general provision that infringes the law that is the basis of those rights. None of the hypotheticals suggested by the State fits the situation posed by the petitioners, since the act by which Congress removed the justices from the bench of the Constitutional Court –allegedly in violation of the Ecuadorian Constitution- cannot be equated with an administrative decision. Therefore, the petitioners were not required to either pursue or exhaust the contentiousadministrative remedy before turning to the inter-American system. 25. The petitioners state that five of the former justices of the Constitutional Court filed petitions seeking amparo relief to challenge the constitutionality of their removal, but that the political pressure brought to bear resulted in the nullification of the decisions whereby the courts agreed to hear three of the petitions of amparo. The other two petitions were denied in limine by a decision of December 2, 2004: To establish that in order to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution, including number 25-160 () for the alleged violation of the Constitution, as to the forms or the merits, the only action that applies is the action for unconstitutionality which must be brought before the Constitutional Court () and that any recourse ofamparo that were presented in the national courts with respect to said resolution, must be rejected directly and declared inadmissible by the respective judge, because otherwise they would be deciding a case against the express text of the law, which would in turn generate the corresponding judicial actions.10 (emphasis added) 26. The State does not list this among the effective remedies, but the Commission notes that they were filed in an attempt by the petitioners to have their situation resolved in the domestic courts. 27. In short, the Inter-American Commission finds that the Ecuadorian State did not provide the petitioners with a simple and effective recourse by which to challenge the congressional resolutions that they believed violated their human rights. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court stepped in to prevent them from exhausting any remedy that might have resolved the matter. Therefore, the exceptions allowed under American Convention Article 46(2), subparagraphs (a) and (b), to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies apply in the present case. 2. Timeliness of the petition 28. Because the exceptions allowed under Article 46(2) of the Convention do apply, the requirement stipulated in Article 46(1)(b) does not apply. The petition was lodged in February of 2005, after the petitions of amparo filed by a number of the petitioners were denied. The Inter-American Commission considers that the petition was filed within a reasonable period of time, under the terms of Article 32 of its Rules of Procedure. C. Duplication of international proceeding and international res judicata 29. Article 46(1)(c) of the American Convention provides that for petitions to be admissible, the subject of the petition or communication must not be pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Under Article 47(d) of the Convention, the IACHR will not admit a petition that is substantially the same as one previously studied by the Commission or by another international organization. In the present case, neither party has supplied information that would indicate the presence of either of these grounds for inadmissibility, so that the Inter-American Commission concludes that these requirements have been met. 10 Resolution of the Constitutional Court adopted in the session of December 2, 2004. 6