40. A State claiming non-exhaustion of domestic remedies has the obligation to show the effectiveness of the remedies it asserts have not been exhausted. In that respect, the State has indicated that the following remedies under Panamanian law have been available to the petitioners: the action for unconstitutionality, the contentious-administrative venue, actions and appeals that all instances of the administrative and judicial jurisdiction guarantee as part of due process, the amparo action, and the office of the Ombudsman. 41. With regards to the action for unconstitutionality,15 referred to by the State, the IACHR finds that this would not be an adequate remedy in the present case. Said action is intended to challenge laws, decrees, decisions, resolutions and other acts of authority considered to be unconstitutional, whereas the petitioners are not alleging the unconstitutionality of the agreements signed by the State with the alleged victims but instead that these are not being observed. 42. As to the administrative and contentious-administrative remedies which the State has stated are available, as well as judicial actions before the Office of the Attorney dealing with the presence of colonists in the territory of the alleged victims, the Commission observes that the petitioners have filed complaints with administrative and judicial bodies which have failed to elicit an effective response from the State to resolve that issue.16 As for judicial actions against the colonists for environmental offenses,17 the Commission finds that these have also proved unsuccessful given that the invasion of colonists has continued. 43. As to the amparo action referred to by the State as one of the remedies that the alleged victims could and should have utilized, its stated purpose is to call for the revocation of an injunction to do or not do issued or executed by a public servant in violation of the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution. The Commission observes that said action would be inadequate in the present case, since the petitioners are not alleging that the orders issued by the State through the agreements it signed violated the rights and guarantees enshrined in the Constitution, but instead that said orders have not been complied with. 44. With regards to the office of the Ombudsman, the Commission observes that this is not a domestic remedy that the petitioners are required to pursue. Judicial Code of Panama, Chapter IV. Article 2559: Anyone, through legal counsel, may challenge before the Supreme Court of Justice laws, cabinet decrees, decree laws, decrees, decisions, resolutions, and any other acts of authority, which they consider unconstitutional, and request the respective declaration of unconstitutionality. 16 The documents submitted by the petitioners that are part of the record before the IACHR refer, inter alia to the following administrative and contentious-administrative proceedings against the activities of the squatters: Administrative proceeding for eviction presented on February 20, 2002, to the Mayor of the District of Chepo by representatives of the Kuna de Madungandí General Congress; Administrative proceeding for expulsion of colonists as trespassers presented to the Mayor of the District of Chepo by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress on April 5, 2002; Letter to the Governor of the Province of Panama requesting eviction of colonists dated February 16, 2003; Administrative proceeding for eviction presented by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the Governor of the Province of Panama on March 7, 2003; Administrative proceeding (Correction) for eviction of the colonists Melquíades Chávez at al. presented by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the Governor of the Province of Panama on June 26, 2003; Administrative proceeding in motion to proceed presented by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the Governor of the Province of Panama on August 13, 2003; Administrative proceeding for eviction of colonists presented by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the President of the Republic of Panama on January 24, 2004. 17 The documents submitted by the parties that are part of the record before the IACHR include, at least, the following petitions and criminal complaints against individual colonists for environmental offenses that in some instances were investigated and punished. However, they have not stopped the problem of continuing invasions by colonists: Criminal complaint filed by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress with the Prosecutor General against Ignacio Pérez et al. for environmental offenses, dated December 20, 2006; Environmental complaint lodged by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress with the Judicial Technical Police, Special Unit for Crimes against the Environment, dated January 15, 2007; and criminal complaint lodged by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress with the 11th Panama Circuit State Prosecutor against the colonists Ivan Batista, Arnulfo Batista Rubio and Alcibiades Batista, dated February 1, 2007; Criminal suit in request for evidence and inspection presented by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the 11th Panama Circuit State Prosecutor, dated February 7, 2007; Formal presentation of a criminal suit by representatives of the Kuna of Madungandí Congress to the 5th Criminal Circuit Prosecutor of the First Judicial Circuit of Panama, April 20, 2007. 15 8