34 VIII ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE CONVENTION (RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND JUDICIAL PROTECTION) IN RELATION TO ARTICLES 1(1) AND 2 THEREOF (OBLIGATION TO RESPECT RIGHTS AND DOMESTIC LEGAL EFFECTS) The Commission’s arguments 90. Regarding Article 25 of the American Convention, the Commission alleged that: (a) The State denied the alleged victims their right to judicial protection and thus violated the provisions of Article 25(1) of the Convention; (b) According to the Court’s case law, this article includes recourses such as amparo and protection that should be simple, brief procedures for the protection of fundamental rights; (c) In Peru, the action for amparo is conceived as a procedure aimed at protecting the fundamental rights of the individual; and also as an action to protect constitutional guarantees designed to “re-establish the situation prior to the violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right”; (d) The elimination of the possibility of review or control of the administrative act that gave rise to the violation suffered by the alleged victims violated the right to a simple and prompt recourse; (e) The existence of acts of the State that are not controlled either administratively or judicially is incompatible with the American Convention; (f) The Lima Superior Court did not examine the merits of the appeal concerning the application for amparo; (g) By conditioning the admissibility of the action to the terms of an administrative resolution and by failing to rule on the merits, based on the arguments and the evidence provided by the parties, the ruling of the Constitutional Court eliminated the possibility of judicial guarantees for the congressional employees. This violation continues for numerous individuals who have not had a response concerning the merits of their claims; (h) The grounds for the Constitutional Court’s decision denied the congressional employees any possibility of judicial control or review of their claims; (i) The ordinary proceeding cited by the Constitutional Court was barred, because the alleged victims had exceeded the time limit for resorting to an administrative-law proceeding; consequently, they were left without any protection based on an arbitrary decision;