33 effective recourse, and also to ensure the due application of the said recourse by its judicial authorities. 115 At the same time, the State’s general duty to adapt its domestic law to the stipulations of said Convention in order to guarantee the rights enshrined in it, established in Article 2, includes the enactment of regulations and the development of practices that seek to achieve an effective observation of the rights and liberties enshrined in it, as well as the adoption of measures to suppress the regulations and practices of any nature that imply a violation to the guarantees established in the Convention. 116 129. The Commission notes that in the case at hand the victims filed no judicial remedies to challenge the termination resolution adopted by the National Congress on December 8, 2004. According to the petitioners, that failure to pursue remedies was chiefly due to: (i) the existence of a decision by the Constitutional Court expressly ruling amparo suits inadmissible; (ii) the repeated rejection of suits filed by the former members of the Constitutional Court who had been dismissed in similar circumstances; and (iii) the absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality at the Constitutional Court that would be called on to hear the final instance of any amparo remedies filed. 130. In response, the State argued that the alleged violation of the right enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention is inadmissible, since the victims in the case did not pursue such domestic remedies as unconstitutionality suits or the remedies offered by administrative proceedings. 131. The Commission again states that at the admissibility stage – in its analysis of the exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement in particular – it resolved the matters related to the procedural effects of failing to pursue those remedies referred to by the State. At the merits stage, the Commission will consider the petitioners’ claims regarding their inability to file for amparo actions in the specific context in which they found themselves, as well as whether this situation affected their right to judicial protection. 132. Thus, the Commission has established that on December 2, 2004, the Constitutional Court issued a decision ruling that to suspend the effects of a parliamentary resolution that was allegedly in violation of the Constitution, the only admissible action was an unconstitutionality suit filed with the Constitutional Court. It consequently determined that all the country’s judges had to reject and rule inadmissible any amparo actions lodged with them for that purpose. It further added that a judge’s failure to do so could lead to legal action. 117 Several elements in that decision are worth noting. 133. First of all, the decision was adopted at the express request of the President of the Republic “to prevent trial judges from admitting for processing constitutional amparo actions against Parliamentary Resolution 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004.” Although this decision of the Constitutional Court was issued prior to the termination of the victims in this case, the Commission notes that through Resolution Parliamentary 25-160, Congress ordered the termination of the members of the Constitutional Court in terms similar to those of Resolution 25-181 whereby, some days later, it ordered the termination of the Supreme Court justices. In 115 I/A Court H.R., Reverón-Trujillo v. Venezuela Case. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of june 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Párr. 60. Citing: c.f. Case of the Street Children (Villagrán Morales ‘‘et al.) v. Guatemala, Merits, Judgment of November 19, 1999, Series C No. 63, para. 237; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of August 31, 2001, Series C No. 79, para. 135; and Case of the Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of June 17 2005, Series C No. 125, para. 99. 116 I/A Court H.R., Reverón-Trujillo v. Venezuela Case. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of june 30, 2009. Series C No. 197. Párr. 60. Citing: c.f. Case of Castillo Petruzzi v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment of May 30, 1999, Series C No. 52, para. 207. 117 2004.) Annex 9. Decision of the Constitutional Court, dated December 2, 2004. (Annex to the initial petition received on December 30,