competent ratione temporis to examine this petition under the American Convention since the facts occurred following ratification of the American Convention. Lastly, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges possible violations of rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 38. Article 46.1.a of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law as a requirement for admitting claims alleging violations of the American Convention. For its part, Article 46.2 of the Convention provides that the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement shall not be applicable when (i) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (ii) the party alleging violation of his rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (iii) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 39. The State has not presented arguments regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies with regard to the proceeding on removal of the prosecutor from his post and argued that the administrative litigation process and the claim for damages for the alleged lost earnings have not been exhausted. For his part, the petitioner contends that domestic remedies were exhausted with the CSJ’s rejection on June 16, 2004, of the action of unconstitutionality. As concerns lost earnings, the petitioner maintains that the judgment of April 29, 2004, acquitted him in the second proceeding, that a judicial error was made, and that those earnings were retained by order of the FGE. 40. The Commission observes that the subject of the present petition is the alleged prosecution of the alleged victim for the purpose of removing him from his post as Criminal Prosecutor through proceedings that allegedly violate the right to a fair trial and deprive him of effective judicial protection, with a view to hindering his work as a prosecutor. 41. The Commission notes that as a result of the complaint lodged against the petitioner by Paolo Ortiz on April 7, 2003, the JEM, through judgment No. 2/03, allegedly decided to remove the petitioner from his post. On April 10, 2003, the petitioner allegedly filed a petition for clarification and for reversal of the decision of the JEM, which was presumably denied by the JEM on April 22, 2003. The petitioner allegedly lodged an action of unconstitutionality against the JEM’s ruling, which was rejected by the CSJ on June 16, 2004. 42. Moreover, the complaint lodged against the petitioner by the Dures was allegedly opened for processing on May 16, 2003. On May 20, 2003, the CSJ decided to suspend the petitioner, without pay, until the JEM made its final decision. The CSJ allegedly revoked its decision in part and ordered payment of 50 percent of the petitioner’s salary. On April 29, 2004, the petitioner was allegedly acquitted by the JEM. The petitioner presumably filed a petition for clarification regarding the absence of a ruling on costs and, on May 13, 2004, the JEM allegedly decided “that each party should bear its own costs.” In addition, on October 20, 2006, the petitioner presumably petitioned the Public Prosecutor’s Office for his lost earnings, but did not receive a response. 43. The Commission notes that the first proceeding ended with the rejection of the action of unconstitutionality against judgment No.2/03, through a CSJ ruling of June 16, 2004,5 whereby the remedies were allegedly exhausted, and that in the second proceeding, the alleged victim was allegedly acquitted on April 29, 2004, and the petition for clarification of costs rejected on May 13, 2004. The Commission considers therefore that the petition meets the requirement set in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. Law 1084/97, which governs the procedure for prosecution and removal of Magistrates. Article 33. In addition to an appeal for reversal and clarification against the final verdict of the Jury, an action of unconstitutionality may also be brought, which shall be decided on by the Court sitting en banc. 5