15 exhausted and that the children should resort to the Central Electoral Board and to the ordinary courts; it never mentioned the remedy of amparo or the remedy of unconstitutionality; c) The hierarchic recourses established in Dominican administrative law were neither appropriate nor effective, and were not alleged at the appropriate time; d) The Central Electoral Board is the administrative authority responsible for recording registrations; an informal appeal before this body does not constitute an effective remedy, since this is a discretional procedure. The Central Electoral Board is an autonomous body that makes decisions against which there is no appeal, that does not have any formal procedures and that has not published regulations or established procedures that petitioners may use to request a review of an adverse decision of the Civil Status Registrars. Furthermore, the law does not grant the Central Electoral Board authority to consider individual cases decided by the Civil Status Registrars. The only remedy established by the laws in force when the facts occurred for appealing the rejection of a registration request was the appeal before the Public Prosecutor; e) In the Dominican Republic, the remedy of amparo is not regulated in any specific law. It is part of positive law based on the judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of February 24, 1999. The State has not proved that this remedy is effective, and f) The State has not proved that the remedy of unconstitutionality is effective, since enabling regulations for its implementation have not been issued. Considerations of the Court 59. The American Convention establishes that the Court has full jurisdiction over matters relating to the cases submitted to it, including the rules of procedure on which its capacity to exercise its jurisdiction are based.7 60. Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention establishes that, to determine the admissibility of a petition or communication lodged before the Inter-American Commission in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 of the Convention, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.8 This means that these remedies must not only exist formally, but also that they must be appropriate and effective, as a result of the objections established in Article 46(2) of the Convention.9 7 Cf. Case of The Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C No. 118, para. 133; Case of Tibi. Judgment of September 7, 2004. Series C No. 114, para. 47, and Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 65. 8 Cf. Case of the Moiwana community. Judgment of June 15, 2005. Series C No. 124, para. 48; Case of Tibi, supra note 7, para. 48, and Case of Herrera Ulloa. Judgment of July 2, 2004. Series C No. 107, para. 80. 9 Cf. Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters. Preliminary objections, supra note 7, para. 134; Case of Tibi, supra note 7, para. 50, and the Case of Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community. Preliminary objections. Judgment of February 1, 2000. Series C No. 66, para. 53.