State 21. The State argues first that the Commission lacks ratione materiae competence with regard to the alleged violation of the right to work set forth in the Additional Protocol on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. It states that under the scope of article 19 of the treaty, the allegations regarding the right to work cannot be heard through the petitions and cases system. 22. It argues that it cannot be claimed that former President Alberto Fujimori’s 1994 statements were in reference to the petitioner, because, as indicated, he was arrested in 2003. It states that there is also no information on the measures that Mr. Cajahuanca Vásquez took in response to that statement from the president. Likewise, it argues that any connection between the insinuation of membership in the Shining Path (or other terrorist organization) and the subject of this dispute involving the sanctions and dismissal issued by the CNM and the subsequent criminal conviction has not been proven. Consequently, it states that although violation of Article 11 of the American Convention has not been explicitly alleged, such violation has no factual support and should be declared inadmissible. 23. It states that this case is inadmissible because domestic remedies were not properly exhausted, as the lawsuit for damages was not filed by the deadlines set forth by Peruvian law. This prevented a ruling on the merits, which could have eventually provided the petitioner with reparations. In this regard, it notes that the petitioner filed suit on November 25, 2011, knowing that it was passed the legal deadline for filing it. It states that on April 12, 2017, the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Lima granted the objections made by the defendants on the grounds that the petitioner was acquitted of the criminal charge in a judgment dated July 7, 2010. 24. It states that the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed by the alleged victim was ruled on by the Provisional Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on August 2, 2017, which found that the deadline established in article 27 of Law 24,973 is applicable to circumstances of arbitrary detention and judicial error. It also argued that the petitioner did not provide support for why the deadline should not be applied in his case, nor did he clearly and precisely describe the alleged legal infraction, as required by subparagraph 2 of article 388 of the Civil Procedural Code. 25. The State also alleges that there was no violation of the application of the deadline established in article 27 of Law 24,973. It explains that this law governs the right to compensation for both judicial error and arbitrary detention. It states that the judicial authorities interpreted and applied this article in a way that was as favorable to the petitioner as possible, as it considered that “from the moment of his acquittal, the actor had the opportunity to qualify to claim damages if the conviction and sentence execution amounted to an alleged arbitrary detention or judicial error.” 26. It states that the petitioner filed suit with the full knowledge that the deadline had expired, and that to address this situation, he invoked the prescription deadline set in article 2001 subparagraph four of the Civil Code, a legal provision that addresses the prescription of an action stemming from a final judgment, which is different than the situation surrounding this lawsuit. Therefore, it observed that in reality, the alleged victim disagrees with the rulings of domestic courts and wants the Commission to act as a fourth instance in a matter that has already been resolved by domestic jurisdictional bodies. 27. As regards the procedure before the CNM, the State argues that the petitioner has not been clear in challenging the disciplinary process carried out against him and that he has specified neither the violation he is alleging nor the legal support thereof. It states that without prejudice to this, the alleged victim filed a suit of constitutional amparo that, after being fully evaluated, was rejected by the Constitutional Court on the grounds that the sanction procedure was valid and in strict adherence to the law. 28. It underscores that in the framework of the administrative procedure launched by the CNM, a series of steps were taken in adherence to due process. It specifies that his dismissal was ordered after it was proven that the petitioner had acted irregularly by granting leave to the judge of the First Criminal Court of Huánuco 4