on January 7, 1998, the petitioners were barred from entering their workplace, leading them to file a complaint with the Office of the Police Commissioner. 18. On March 23, 1998, the petitioners filed an action seeking amparo relief, requesting that they be immediately reinstated in their jobs; they argued that due process of law had not been observed in their dismissal. The petitioners argue that while the First Transitory Tribunal Specializing in Public Law declared the objection unfounded, citing failure to exhaust domestic remedies, it also declared the complaint itself unfounded. The petitioners contend that they then filed an appeal with the Transitory Tribunal Chamber Specializing in Public Law, which upheld the lower court’s decision. They then filed a extraordinary appeal with the Constitutional Court which, on January 29, 2001, declared that the complaint had merit in the case of Mirtha Jesús Ruiz Domínguez, as her contract had been suspended due to job disability. However, the Constitutional Court declared that the action was unfounded with respect to the other plaintiffs, since the case ought not to have been pursued by means of an action seeking amparo relief as a proceeding of that nature does not involve an evidentiary phase. The Court also ruled that none of the petitioners’ constitutional rights had been violated. 19. The petitioners allege further that on October 1, 2001, they filed an adversarial administrative action and that on October 5, 2001; the Labor Chamber of the Lima Superior Court ruled that the complaint was inadmissible because it was not filed within the legal time period. The petitioners allege that this decision closed off any possibility of their obtaining judicial remedy through the domestic remedies. The petitioners state further that they were notified of this ruling on January 3, 2002. To be in compliance with the Convention’s requirements, the petitioners lodged their international complaint within two months of the date on which they were notified of that decision. 20. The petitioners argue that by virtue of the facts described, the Peruvian State violated their right to due process, particularly their right to defend themselves, and their right to judicial protection. They also contend that by so doing, the State violated its duty to respect and ensure the Convention protected rights and its duty to adopt domestic legislative measures. 21. In subsequent communications, the petitioners indicated that the Peruvian State had acknowledged the arbitrary nature of Decree Law No. 26093, which had led to their dismissal. The acknowledgment came in the form of enactment of Law No. 27487, which repealed the decree law and held that the dismissals of public employees affected on the basis of that decree law had been irregular. The petitioners contend that despite this acknowledgment, the mechanisms for redressing the rights of the employees that were violated as a consequence of the application of unconstitutional laws, did not satisfy the standards of what constitutes full reparation, as determined by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in similar cases, such as the Case of Baena Ricardo et al. 22. The petitioners also observed that Law No 27803, which the respondent State claims corrected the irregularities committed, was enacted four months after the petitioners filed their case with the IACHR. The petitioners contend that the measures adopted pursuant to that law and the possible administrative remedies mentioned by the State, were not available at the time the violations occurred and that those violations required an effective judicial remedy. Lastly, they point out that these were not remedies they had to exhaust. 4