16 72. Nonetheless, in keeping with the principle of effectiveness of the measures (effet utile), the Inter-American Court has established that not all available remedies in the State must be exhausted in order to satisfy the rule.11 Thus, only remedies that are available and adequate, that is, suitable for the protection of the violated legal situation, must be exhausted. Likewise, the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies does not mean that the alleged victims have the obligation to exhaust all the remedies available to them that may be adequate.12 The IACHR has held on other occasions13 that if the alleged victim lodges a case with one of the valid and adequate alternatives in the domestic jurisdiction and the State had the opportunity of remedying the matter by internal means, the aim of the international norm would have been observed. 73. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently held in its legal precedents that in order to satisfy the rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies “applicants must have made normal use of those domestic remedies which are likely to be effective and sufficient.”14 To this court, “When a remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required.”15 74. Based on the case file of the amparo constitucional proceeding in the domestic courts, the alleged victims pursued said remedy to claim the violation of their constitutional rights to equal protection and non discrimination; to work and job stability; and to participation in government; all rights protected by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.16 As appears on record in the case file of the amparo proceeding, the alleged victims highlighted that the reason for which they were filing their complaint “was not the unwarranted dismissal, rather the unconstitutional conduct of the public administration, which by means of successive acts […] culminated in violating the constitutional rights of the aggrieved workers.” 75. The Commission notices that said remedy ended up in the Fourth Trial Court for Labor Matters. On July 27, 2005, the aforementioned court found the amparo claim admissible and concluded it was groundless on the merits. 11 IA Court of HR. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez. Judgment July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4, par. 64. See, also, ECHR, Kudla v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, October 26, 2000. Par. 152; and Selmouni v. France, no. 25803/94 July 28, 1999. Par. 74. 12 See IACHR. Report Nº 70/04 Petition 667/01. Admissibility Jesús Manuel Naranjo Cárdenas et al (Pensioners of the Venezuelan Aviation Company VIASA) Venezuela. October 13, 2004, par. 52. Available at: http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2004sp/Venezuela.667.01.htm 13 See IACHR, Report N° 40/08 (Admissibility), Petition 270-07, I.V. v. Bolivia, June 23, 2008. Par. 70. IACHR, Report N° 57/03 (Admissibility), Petition 12.337, Marcela Andrea Valdés Díaz v. Chile, October 10, 2003. Par. 40. 14 See ECHR, Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal, no. 65681/01, April 29, 2004. Likewise, Jelicic v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, no. 41183/02, November 15 2005. 15 See ECHR, Moreira Barbosa v. Portugal, no. 65681/01, April 29, 2004. The original text reads: The Court reiterates in this connection that applicants must have made normal use of those domestic remedies which are likely to be effective and sufficient. When a remedy has been attempted, use of another remedy which has essentially the same objective is not required (see Wójcik v. Poland, no. 26757/95, Commission decision of 7 July 1997, Decisions and Reports 90, p. 24, and Günaydin v. Turkey (dec.), no. 27526/95, 25 April 2002). 16 Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Art. 19 and 21; Art. 70; Art. 87, 89 and 93, respectively.