it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 39. The Commission also has competence ratione loci, inasmuch as the petition alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention, said to have occurred within the territory of a State party. The Commission has competence ratione temporis to examine the petition inasmuch as the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected by the Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the facts alleged in the petition were said to have occurred. Lastly, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law 40. On the matter of compliance with the rule requiring prior exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law, provided for in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the petitioners allege that they initiated and exhausted a petition seeking amparo relief. They assert that the final decision on that petition was delivered by the Constitutional Court on January 29, 2001. They also claim to have filed an adversarial administrative action, which the Labor Chamber of Lima’s Superior Court dismissed on October 5, 2001, on the grounds that it was lodged after the statutory deadline. The petitioners emphasize that the final decision on the petition seeking amparo relief was delivered three years and nine months after the suit was filed and held that this forum was not the appropriate avenue for the petitioners’ claim. The petitioners argue that by that time they could not seek protection in the domestic courts. The State, for its part, alleges that with enactment of Law No. 27803, all those persons who were not in agreement with the lists of employees irregularly dismissed and/or the benefits that the law established, could file a constitutional remedy seeking amparo relief or an adversarial administrative action. 41. The Commission should begin by pointing out that in order to determine whether the Convention rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies has been satisfied, the purpose of the petition must be determined and the remedies used to contest the situation denounced must be analyzed. The Commission observes that the purpose of the petition in the current case concerns the alleged arbitrary dismissal of the petitioners from the jobs they were performing in the Ministry of the Economy and Finance, alleging a failure to observe due process and the resulting lack of judicial protection. 42. Regarding the foregoing considerations, the Commission reiterates that to comply with the requirement established in Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention, if the alleged victim raised the question via any of the appropriate remedies under the domestic legal system and the State had an opportunity to remedy the matter in its courts, the purpose of the international provision has been served. 1 In the present case, the IACHR finds that the petitioners did avail themselves of the petition of amparo, which, under the Peruvian system, is a suit seeking protection of constitutional guarantees2 to “restore the situation that existed prior to the violation or threat of violation of a constitutional right.”3 The Commission observes that in the 1 IACHR, Report No. 70/04 (Admissibility), petition 667/01, Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al., Venezuela, October 15, 2004, par. 52; IACHR, Report No. 57/03 (Admissibility), petition 12.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz, Chile, October 10, 2003, par. 40. 2 1993 Constitution of Peru, Title V: Constitutional Guarantees, Art. 200. 3 Law 23506 (Article 1). 8