13 d) The alleged victims did not exhaust the remedy of review before the Civil Status Registrar, nor did they file the matter directly with the court of first instance with jurisdiction to hear all matters concerning human rights; e) The alleged victims did not file an application for amparo [an action for the protection of constitutional rights] although this has existed in the Dominican Republic since 1978, when the State ratified the American Convention. In 1999, the “Supreme Court of Justice established in a judgment that the procedure for applications for amparo was the same as the procedure for civil matters;” however, prior to this ruling, several courts had already heard amparo actions; f) The alleged victims did not file an action for unconstitutionality against the norm that denied them access to recognition of their nationality, and g) The Court should declare that it lacked jurisdiction to hear this case, because the State has appropriate mechanisms and opportunities for settling this dispute. Arguments of the Commission 57. The Inter-American Commission stated that: a) Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention stipulate that it is the Commission, as one of the principal organs of the system, that determines whether a petition is admissible; b) The arguments presented by the State concerning the failure to exhaust domestic remedies are time-barred and unfounded; they seek to return the proceeding to the stage prior to the admissibility of the petition, which is precluded, because the Commission, with strict respect for the adversary principle, has considered the arguments of both parties together with the information and documentation in the file, and has decided to declare the case admissible on the grounds set out in the admissibility report; c) The State’s “new” position concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, in which it indicated that the hierarchic recourses of amparo and unconstitutionality, which were not mentioned during the admissibility stage before the Commission, are the “existing” remedies, continues to be without merit, because it is time-barred. The State has not proved that such remedies are effective, and has merely mentioned their existence; d) With regard to the hierarchic recourse before the Central Electoral Board, which is of an administrative nature, Dominican legislation does not provide for the possibility of those whose request for a late registration of birth has been rejected being able to file a remedy of appeal or an appeal for revision before the Central Electoral Board. Since [the petitioners] had been unable to comply with the basic requirements for obtaining a late registration of birth, and bearing in mind that the Central Electoral Board does not consider requests for registration that are submitted without the required documentation attached, a possible appeal before this body would not have been effective;