23. The parties agree that: The dismissed justices, Manuel Aguirre Roca, Guillermo Rey Terry, and Delia Revoredo Marsano de Mur, lodged separate complaints based on the violation of constitutional guarantees, which have been handled by the Tribunal and Court of Public Law of Lima. 24. The action for the violation of constitutional guarantees is a suitable constitutional guarantee for protection from the violation of different basic rights other than liberty, in keeping with the Constitution of Peru. 25. In keeping with articles 32 and 34 of Law No. 23,506, complaints based on the violation of constitutional guarantees must be resolved, firstly, within three days of a response to the complaint and, secondly, in less than 20 days from the time the file is received. 26. The final resort in resolving actions for the violation of constitutional guarantees is the Constitutional Court. 27. The complaints based on the violation of constitutional guarantees were filed on July 25, 1997 (Aguirre Roca) and August 1, 1997 (Rey Terry and Revoredo), as were the respective appeals, and seven months have transpired since the filing of those complaints, with no final ruling thereon. 28. Bearing in mind the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter "the Court"), which has stated that "the rule of prior exhaustion must never lead to a halt or delay that would render international action ineffective,"4 such as action by the Commission, which in turn has said that "the right to a trial within a reasonable time frame provided for in the American Convention is based, among other reasons, on the need to avoid unwarranted delays that lead to a deprivation or denial of justice for persons alleging the violation of rights protected under the aforementioned Convention.5 " 29. The Inter-American Court has indicated that "Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention speaks of "generally recognized principles of international law." Those principles refer not only to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their adequacy and effectiveness, as shown by the exceptions set out in Article 46(2).6" 30. The Commission feels that from the accompanying background, it can be concluded that to date domestic remedies have been neither rapid nor effective in protecting and guaranteeing the rights of the justices. There has been a clear, unwarranted delay in processing the complaints based on the violation of constitutional guarantees lodged by the victims. Failure to resolve those complaints has affected both the justices, in particular, and the operation of a basic organ in the Peruvian legal system (the Constitutional Court), which leads this Commission to declare the case admissible. 31. With regard to passive justification, Peru is a State Party to the Convention, which it ratified on July 28, 1978. The Commission is therefore competent to hear this case. V. CONCLUSIONS 1. The Commission concludes that the petition meets the formal admissibility requirements set forth in article 46 of the American Convention. 2. The Commission concludes that with regard to the objections of the Peruvian State regarding failure to exhaust domestic remedies, no credible evidence was presented during the process, particularly during the Commission hearing in February 1998, showing the existence 4 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C, No. 1, paragraph 93. 5 Complaint before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Case 11,219 (Nicholas Chapman Blake) August 3, 1995, page 32. 6 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez, Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, page 16, paragraph 63. 4