Constitutional Court against the previous decision. On December 20, 2007, the Constitutional Court declared the appeal for constitutional grievance inadmissible, indicating that the action was submitted late and that the ongoing nature of the impairment was not proven (supra paras. 102 to 104). 180. Consequently, it first follows that the writ of amparo presented by Mr. Cuya did not turn out to be a suitable and effective mechanism to protect the guarantee of stability in office, as it did not obtain a ruling on the merits directed to annul the decision that ordered his non-ratification in office. This situation was reaffirmed by the decision of the Constitutional Court that did not allow the review of the situation, declaring the writ of amparo unfounded. 181. Secondly, the amparo remedies filed by Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse were also ineffective at protecting the guarantee of stability in office, since no decision on the merits was obtained. The appeals were declared inadmissible on the grounds that the CNM's decisions cannot be reviewed in court. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court declared the appeals filed as late submissions without taking into account the new case law and normative criteria produced in 2005, which the State itself argued. 182. In addition, the Court considers that the regulations applicable in this case at the time of the issuance of the CNM's non-ratification decisions against the alleged victims prevented judicial review in matters of evaluations and ratifications by the judges and the prosecutors, the decisions were unable to be challenged administratively and unable to be appealed in court, which was incompatible with the American Convention, since the regulation did not allow the alleged victims to access justice through a remedy that would allow them to protect their rights. Based on the foregoing, the Court considers that the normative framework in force in Peru applied in this case violates Article 2 of the American Convention in relation to Article 25(1) of the same instrument, although as the State argued, the possibility of challenge to CNM decisions through the writ of amparo under certain conditions now exists. 183. Consequently, the Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado, Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse. Finally, the Court considers it unnecessary to analyze the allegations concerning Article 8(2)(h) of the Convention, since, given the events in this case, the respective analysis was carried out regarding the alleged violation of the right to judicial protection. C. Conclusion 184. The Court concludes that the State is responsible for the violation of the judicial protection established in Article 25(1) of the American Convention, in relation to the obligations established in Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument, to the detriment of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, Jean Aubert Díaz Alvarado and Marta Silvana Rodríguez Ricse. IX REPARATIONS APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 63(1) OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 185. Based on the provisions of Article 63(1) of the American Convention, the Court has indicated that any violation of an international obligation that has produced harm entails the duty 46