arguing that the alleged victims have not attempted it, in order to allege that its obligation to provide an effective recourse has been fulfilled.18 32. The Court, likewise, finds that those who filed a writ of amparo, among them 20 of the alleged victims, did so despite the express prohibition that is evidence of a context of denial of justice. While the Court welcomes the information provided by the State, according to which, on various occasions, the rights of persons affected by the dismissals had been guaranteed, those are isolated cases that do not necessarily demonstrate rejection of the referred-to context.19 33. As to a class action as an available remedy, the Court finds that a decision based on that action would be declaratory and not a restitution ab initio. Thus, it was an effective remedy to contest the legality and constitutionality of the decrees applied to the dismissed employees, but not a suitable remedy to resolve their individual claims.20 34. In view of the above, the Court holds that the exceptions provided for in Article 46(2)(b) of the Convention exist. Therefore, the exhaustion of domestic remedies was not required. The Court emphasizes that the fact that the employees were declared victims in Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru and in Canales Huapaya v. Peru and that some of the alleged victims in this case have accessed the domestic jurisdiction to enforce their rights does not detract from the context identified by the Court in its prior judgments, nor does it imply that there existed a suitable remedy available to the alleged victims in this case. C. The alleged lack of the Court’s competence to act as a fourth instance C.1 Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 35. The State argued that this case seeks a reconsideration of the criteria adopted in the decision that resolved the writ of amparo filed by 20 of the alleged victims without explaining how the decisions had resulted in an infringement of the rights established in the Convention. It underscored that the organs of the inter-American system are not a substitute for domestic courts, nor do they act as higher courts to re-examine judicial decisions adopted within the framework of procedures that respected international standards. The State argued that the Court cannot substitute its assessment of the normative framework for that made by the national courts. Moreover, it considered that this group of 20 alleged victims received a response that was in accord with the law. 18 Cf. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, paras. 115 and 116. In its final written arguments, the State informed on the existence of three rulings, issued between 1997 and 1999, in which the Constitutional Court exercised a diffuse control of constitutionality of the norms that authorized the dismissals of the employees under the streamlining of personnel process and did not apply them. 19 20 Class actions are regulated by Law 24968 “Procedural law on class actions,” which provides, in its Article 1, for their application “for infractions of the Constitution or the law on administrative regulations and norms and resolutions and decrees of a general nature that the Executive Branch, the Regional and Local Governments and other persons of public law issue.” Article 2 of the law establishes that the purpose of class actions was “jurisdictional control of the constitutionality and legality of norms […] by means of the declaration and the execution of unconstitutionality or unlawfulness, in all or in part “[…]. Its Article 22 provides that “a judgment in favor of a class action that, from the date that it is is signed or executed, determines the total or partial non-application, when appropriate and with general effect, of the norm subject to the declaration of unconstitutionality or unlawfulness. The judgment is effective as of the day after its publication.” Law 24968 of 1988, “Procedural law on class actions” (evidence file, f. 2431). 11