dismissals were based infringed on their right to due process. They also point out that the legislation itself, in addition to other actions undertaken by the Executive Branch to influence the Judicial Branch, created a climate of legal vulnerability and insecurity that prevented them from obtaining a judicial remedy even though they had made use of judicial bodies. Also, the petitioners state that the efforts made by the State to give reparations for some of the consequences of the violations cannot affect or influence in any way the competence of the IACHR to continue processing the case. 67. The State argues that the situation about which the petitioners originally complained had substantially changed because several of the petitioners had voluntarily accepted certain benefits granted by the State as means of providing reparations for the prejudicial results of the dismissals. As a result, the State argues that the matter being studied by the IACHR has become abstract. 68. The Commission considers it relevant to review this argument here, based on information available to the parties and the decisions of the Commission and the Inter-American Court on this subject. 69. First, the Commission reviews the doctrine of the Inter-American Court in the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru case in which the Court stated: that the international responsibility of the State arises immediately when the internationally illegal act attributed to it is committed, although it can only be demanded once the State has had the opportunity to correct it by its own means. Possible subsequent reparation under domestic legal venue does not inhibit the Commission or the Court from hearing the case that has already 25 begun under the American Convention. 70. In effect, the violations of the American Convention alleged by the petitioners had been committed beginning in December 1995; while the petition was submitted to be heard by the IACHR before issue of the norms that the State cites as giving rise to the compensation granted to the petitioners. Consequently, the Commission can hear the matter in order to determine whether an international illegality attributable to the State was committed and if so, in that case, its international responsibility is enforceable as to whether it had the opportunity to repair the damage and what measures it took and at what time in this regard. 71. In accordance with Article 48.b of the Convention, the IACHR must verify “whether the grounds for the petition or communication still exist” before analyzing the situation in depth. Thus, the legal question to be analyzed is whether acceptance by the petitioners in this case of the measures offered by the State altered the complaint originally submitted to the Commission, to such a degree that the grounds leading to the petition no longer exist in the present. 72. In this regard, the Commission observes that the original complaint submitted by the petitioners referred to the State’s alleged international responsibility for violating the rights to due process, the principle of legality, and judicial protection with the illegal dismissal of the 85 alleged victims. Likewise, the facts after 2001 refer to a series of measures adopted by the State designed to repair the damage to the former workers who were irregularly dismissed, among which is the group of 34 petitioners in the present case. The State alleges that as a result of applying these 25 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2005, Series C, No. 110, para. 75. 16