had the right to a judicial remedy that effectively offered the possibility of a tribunal determining whether the dismissal was lawful under domestic law.101 98. According to the standards described, there is in intrinsic relationship between the existence of sufficient justification and the possibility of challenging decisions and formulating an adequate defense in the framework of subsequent remedies. It is clear from the foregoing section that the Ombudsman's decision infringed the guarantee of sufficient justification, given that said decision does not reflect a consistency between the facts alleged and the causes invoked. As a result, when she invoked the remedies, Mrs. Maldonado's possibility of an effective review and judicial protection was severely limited. 99. Thus, Mrs. Maldonado presented a petition for review to the Ombudsman in order to dispute the dismissal decision in accordance with Article 79 of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations. The petition was rejected by the decision of June 16, 2000, signed by the Chief of the Human Resources Unit of the Ombudsman's Office. The Commission finds that under the institution's Personnel Regulations, the petition for review should have been decided by the Ombudsman, not the Chief of the Human Resources Unit. The State recognized that this was an anomaly. 100. The first remedy did not allow the problems with the Ombudsman's decision to be corrected. In rejecting the petition, rather, the authority merely echoed those problems, saying that the allegations “reflect conduct not desirable in we who defend human rights.” Furthermore, the IACHR also underscores a contradiction in that decision, given that it also states that this act “must be dealt with by the competent courts," which, as was indicated, did not occur in this case. 101. Then, on June 20, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado filed an appeal with the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters. Article 80 of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations provides that if the petition for review disputing the dismissal in domestic proceedings is rejected, the person may "appeal to the divisions of the Labor and Social Security Courts ... ; [t]he appeal procedure shall be that set forth in the Labor Code.” The appeal was refused on June 26 of that year. The Second Division found that it lacked jurisdiction to issue a decision because the Labor Code did not envisage this circumstance. 102. The Commission notes that, faced with this refusal, Mrs. Maldonado brought an action of unconstitutionality in a specific case, which was ruled inadmissible by the Constitutional Court on October 9, 2001, on the ground that an appeal to the Labor and Social Security Courts was not the "appropriate procedure." In spite of this assertion, the Constitutional Court did not explain what was the suitable procedure for Mrs. Maldonado to use. 103. Thus, neither the appeal nor the action of unconstitutionality in a specific case allowed a review of the penalty or offered an effective remedy for the infringements of due process described in the preceding section. 104. The IACHR observes that the Personnel Regulations of the Human Rights Ombudsman, which establishes the appeal to the Labor and Social Security Courts as the appropriate judicial remedy for challenging a dismissal, was adopted based on the Law of the Human Rights Committee of the Congress of the Republic and of the Human Rights Ombudsman. 105. By the same token, according to Article 108 of the Constitution, “[t]he relations of the State or its decentralized or autonomous entities with its workers are regulated by the Law of the Civil Service, with the exception of those regulated by the laws or provisions of said entities themselves.” For its part, Article 106 of the Constitution provides, “In case of doubt on the interpretation or scope of legal provisions, regulations, or contracts in labor matters, the provisions will be interpreted in the manner most favorable for the workers.” 101 ECHR, Schütch v. Germany Application No. 1620/03. Judgment of December 23, 2010, para. 59; K.M.C. v. Hungary. Application No. 19554/11. Judgment of July 10, 2012, paras. 31-33. 20