exhausting the domestic remedies that existed in the national legislation.” With respect to the available remedies, the State maintained that “the appropriate means were an administrative dispute procedure” and that the petitioners could have presented remedies of constitutional guarantees, such as a class action.”16 In other words, this preliminary objection was presented in a timely fashion and in the terms required under the Court’s case law. 29. The Court notes that the employees in this case were, with respect to their dismissals, in the situation described in Aguado Alfaro et al. v. Peru and in Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru. In the latter, the Court stated that: Indeed, in the judgment in the case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees, the Court noted that, in addition to the amparo, some persons resorted to administrative remedies and others resorted to administrative litigation, without carrying out a differentiated analysis for each group of victims, precisely because the denial of justice took place in a generalized context of inefficiency of the judicial institutions, absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality, and lack of clarity as to the remedy to be used to challenge collective dismissals.17 (emphasis not in original text). 30. Contributing, among others, to this context were the limitations to the independence and impartiality of the Constitutional Court, which was responsible for resolving the special remedies against decisions on amparo. On this issue, the Court in Aguado Alfaro et al. v. Peru case stated: […] it has also been demonstrated (supra para. 89(27)) that the independence and impartiality of the Constitutional Court, as a democratic institution guaranteeing the rule of law, were undermined by the removal of some of its justices, which “violated erga omnes the possibility of exercising the control of constitutionality and the consequent examination of the adaptation of the State’s conduct to the Constitution.” The above resulted in a general situation of absence of guarantees and the ineffectiveness of the courts to deal with facts such as those of the instant case, as well as the consequent lack of confidence in these institutions at the time. 31. The Court considers that, in view of the generalized context of the lack of effectiveness of the judicial institutions, the absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality, and the absence of clarity on the manner to appeal, the alleged victims could not be required to file writs of amparo because those writs had been expressly barred nor to file administrative actions since it was not clear that they could contest the dismissals. On this matter, the Court ruled the following in the judgment in Aguado Alfaro et al. v. Peru: The Court observes that, according to the information in the file, six dismissed congressional employees – two who are alleged victims in this case (supra para. 89(29)) and four who are not – opted to resort to the administrative-law proceeding to request, inter alia, the annulment of one of the decisions ordering their dismissal. The actions were declared admissible in only two of these cases, even though most of the basic facts were almost identical. Also, from the said judgments it is clear that these employees filed recourses for reconsideration and/or of appeal using the administrative proceedings. Accordingly, from the rulings of the domestic courts in the administrative-law jurisdiction in the six cases provided to the Court’s file, it is unclear whether it was necessary to exhaust the administrative proceeding before filing an action before the courts. In this regard, it is also unclear whether the administrative-law jurisdiction was viable or appropriate for the alleged victims to be able to contest their dismissal; consequently, the State cannot defend itself by 16 Cf. Ministry of Justice and Human Rights of Peru. Specialized Public Prosecutor for International Affairs. Report 015-2017-JUS/CDJE-PPES of February 1, 2017. Petition ASCHR 728-00 (evidence file, fs. 987 to 989). The State indicated that the Commission’s note of October 24, 2016 was received by electronic mail on November 1, 2016. 17 Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 103. 10