5 19. The State maintained that should members of the Constitutional Chamber disqualify themselves or should they be challenged, the applicable rule states that other attorneys shall be called up to serve in their place, provided they have the qualifications to serve as a justice on the bench of the Constitutional Chamber. 20. The State asked that a thorough study be done of all the information provided by both parties and that the Commission conclude that the alleged victims’ rights have not been violated inasmuch as the State recognized each one’s rights under the law; two were dismissed, one retained his seat on the bench, and the fourth was “paid” all his entitlements. 21. Finally, the State observed that it hoped that the complainants were not trying to use the Commission as a court of fourth instance, especially since they availed themselves of all the forums available in the country. Based on its arguments the State asked that the Commission find that Honduras did not violate the alleged victims’ human rights. IV. ESTABLISHED FACTS A. PRELIMINARY OBSERVATION 1. Regarding the exhaustion of the domestic remedies 22. In its admissibility report 70/11 the Commission decided to link the analysis of the exceptions to the exhaustion of domestic remedies invoked by the petitioners, to the merits analysis in relation to Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. The Commission notes that the procedural stage of the disciplinary proceedings followed against the alleged victims has changed. Specifically, in all cases, the Judicial Career Council has issued its resolutions on the appeal and these resolutions are final because the constitutional remedy [amparo] was not filled. 23. Consequently, the Commission considers that this remedy is definitely exhausted. Notwithstanding the above, according to the analysis below, the Commission confirmed the prima facie considerations expressed in its admissibility report regarding the absence of minimum guarantees of fair trial. 24. In this scenario, the pending issue relates to the constitucional remedy [amparo]. The Commission notes that this remedy was not filled by the victims and, consequently, the Commission did not include it in its merits analysis. For the purpose of the pending debate on admissibility, the Commission has taken note of the information provided by the parties and considers that in the circumstances of the case, there was no requirement to exhaust the amparo. First, the Commission take note of Article 31 of the Regulations of the Judicial Career Council, which states that against the decision of the Judicial Career Council there is "no appeal , ordinary or extraordinary [remedy],". Such Article can be interpreted as a normative obstacle to file any remedy. In addition, the Commission notes that even if they had file the remedy, due to the design of the system, the alleged victims would have to challenge the judges of the Supreme Court who participated in their dismissals and follow the procedure established in Article 103 of the Law on the Organization, Functions and Authorities of the Courts2. 2 Annex 1. Attorney General of the Republic, Document No. SP-A-90-2012 of June 25, 2012. Attachment to the note of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 757/DGAE/012 of June 26, 2012.