22. Preliminarily, the State held that under Article 80 of the Personnel Regulations of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman it was appropriate to file a petition for review before the organ. The State recognized that the alleged victim did so within the time prescribed by the law for that purpose. The State argued, however, that "apparently the decision refusing the motion was signed by the chief of the human resources unit of the Ombudsman's Office ... despite that, the party concerned did not challenge said anomaly in the decision ... and, therefore, it became final”. 23. In addition, the State held that the administrative and judicial decisions went against Mrs. Maldonado because she received "clearly deficient legal counsel.” It added that that is not sufficient grounds to hold that the State is responsible for violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection. 24. With respect to the appeal filed by Mrs. Maldonado with the National Civil Service Office, the State said that it was not the suitable mechanism because that organ is not competent to take cognizance of “matters concerning requests relating to the reinstatement or worker entitlement payments.” It stressed that the alleged victim had the opportunity to present a defense in the administrative proceedings. 25. As regards the judicial proceedings, the Commission notes that during the merits stage the State advanced different submissions regarding which remedy Mrs. Maldonado should invoke to challenge her dismissal. 26. To begin with, in its briefs presented in 2004, 2011, and 2012, it argued that Olga Maldonado erroneously took her case to the Court Of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters when she should have gone to the Office of the Labor Inspector General. It stated that in accordance with Articles 278 to 282 of the Labor Code, the Inspector General contacted the Ombudsman for the purpose of conciliation or reaching a settlement regarding Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal. The State added that in the event of a failure of the parties to reach a conciliation agreement, the alleged victim should have filed suit with “the courts of justice" and exhausted the various proceedings, such as "a verbal trial and conciliation period, objections, examination of evidence, judgment at first instance, appeals, second instance, and amparo.” 27. At a second point in the inter-American proceedings, in its written submissions in 2013, the State argued that the appeal to the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters was not suitable because she should have filed a suit at first instance with the Labor and Social Security Court. It held that according to Article 372 of the Labor Code, that was the competent authority to take cognizance of labor disputes. It added that Mrs. Maldonado sought to submit the dismissal decision of the Human Rights Ombudsman to the second instance as opposed to a judgment or decision at first instance. 28. At a third juncture, separate from the other two submissions described above, in its brief of August 2005, the State argued that the appeal to the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters was the appropriate remedy to review Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal. However, it held that against that organ's decision that it lacked jurisdiction over the matter, the alleged victim should have filed a motion for amparo, as opposed to an action of unconstitutionality. 29. In that regard, it argued that the motion for amparo should have been interposed so that the Constitutional Court might require the judges of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters “to take cognizance of the appeal in accordance with due process.” It added that, in that way, “the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters would have been made clear.” The State said that "by choosing the wrong labor proceeding, she failed to secure the intervention of the appropriate court in settling her dispute with the Ombudsman's Office.” 30. As regards the unconstitutionality action brought by Olga Maldonado, the State said that “on invoking the constitutional proceeding, the petitioner did so in full knowledge that the proceeding would not succeed because the earlier rulings were correct and grounded in law.” 31. The State said that according to the release of claims for employment signed by Mrs. Maldonado before the Human Rights Ombudsman, she undertook not to attempt any further legal action after 4