Bernardo Colán Vargas, the State specifies that he was inscribed on the National List of Irregularly Dismissed Employees, and that despite not having opted for any of the benefits he had been reinstated in his post with the Ministry of Economy and Finance. It should be noted that in order to regularize his information, this employee should supply certified copies of the affidavits presented at the time, in which he indicates the benefit being chosen. 34. As far as the other employees of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, alleged victims in this case, the State points out that the available information indicates that they were allegedly not included on the National List of Irregularly Dismissed Employees, despite having presented a request for review. For its part, the State specifies that in the case of Luisa Blanco Castro, no request for the review of her dismissal was submitted. 35. The State alleges, moreover, that the petitioners lodged their complaint with the IACHR subsequent to publication of the law authorizing formation of the committees charged with reviewing the collective cases. In other words, according to the State the present petition was allegedly filed “at a time when each state agency was fully engaged in a review of the cases of the former employees who had been irregularly dismissed.” As of the date on which the petition was filed, this remedy was available to the petitioners and was effective, as evidenced by the fact that some of the petitioners won a favorable decision, as previously noted. 36. As for the violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention alleged by the petitioners, the State’s contention is that the fact that the complainants’ claims were dismissed or declared out of order does not mean that their rights were violated. The State argues that the petitioners had access to all the remedies that the domestic law afforded to them, as corroborated by the allegation made in the petition and the documents appended thereto. The decision to dismiss the administrative law suit was due to the fact that it was filed too late, but not because the petitioners were denied access to that avenue to file such a suit. The State’s contention is that actions must be filed in accordance with the law; every citizen, without exception, must comply with the legal requirements to file claims in domestic venues. 37. Based on these arguments of fact and of law, the State requests that the IACHR declare the petition inadmissible under Article 47(b) of the American Convention, pursuant to Article 31(1) of its Rules of Procedure. IV. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY A. The Inter-American Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci and ratione temporis ratione materiae, 38. The petitioners have standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition names as alleged victims Gloria Nila Amabelia Moreno Cueva, Eliana Zavala Urbiola, Nidia Luisa Blanco Castro, Fortunato Crispín Crispín, Hernán Suárez Aparcana, Fanny Rosa Pinto Loaces, Rafael Fritz Poma Guerra, Eduardo Colán Vargas, Marissa Paulina Huamán Valle, Walter Neyra Huamanchumo, Jaime Díaz Idrogo, Segundo León Barturén, Luís A. Del Castillo Florián, Julia Flores Hilario, and Lucio Chávez Quiñones, whose Conventionprotected rights the Peruvian State undertook to respect and guarantee. Peru has been a State party to the American Convention since July 28, 1978, the date on which 7