106. Therefore, the Commission finds that under Guatemala's domestic laws, the appropriate remedy in cases of staff dismissals from the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman is an appeal to the Labor and Social Security Courts, as the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations expressly state. The IACHR notes that the State concurred in one of its briefs to the Commission that this was the appropriate remedy for disputing Mrs. Maldonado's dismissal. The State added that the alleged victims should have filed a motion of amparo requesting the constitutional court to "order" the Second Division to examine the merits of Mrs. Maldonado's appeal 107. The IACHR also observes that in other briefs submitted during this proceeding, the State put forward a different argument to the foregoing by suggesting that the appropriate remedy was not an appeal to the Labor and Social Security Courts, but a proceeding before the Office of the Labor Inspector General and a suit at first instance with the Labor and Social Security Court. In that respect, the Commission notes that the proceeding before the Office of the Labor Inspector General is not a judicial remedy. Moreover, the IACHR finds that these procedures are envisaged not in the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations, but in the Labor Code. 108. The IACHR notes that Article 193 of the Labor Code provides that "workers who provide their services to entities or institutions that because of their nature are subject to a special disciplinary system, shall be governed by their ordinances, bylaws, or regulations.” Therefore, that very code provided that entities under a special disciplinary system, such as the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, had to abide by their own regulations. 109. Aside from the fact that the judicial decisions handed down on Mrs. Maldonado were not consistent with the applicable rules, especially regarding the propriety of the appeal, the Commission sees that none of the organs that issued those decisions indicated to her what the appropriate procedure for disputing her dismissal was, if not the appeal to the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters as provided in Article 80 of the Ombudsman's Personnel Regulations. 110. The IACHR considers that the decision of the Constitutional Court left Mrs. Maldonado in a state of defenselessness and legal uncertainty by: (i) declaring her request inadmissible; (ii) informing her that the appeal established in the Personnel Regulations was not the appropriate remedy; and, (iii) omitting to establish what the suitable remedy was. 111. The IACHR recalls that in the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru the Court found that the victims' rights to a fair trial and judicial protection were violated because they were prevented from invoking a remedy to challenge their dismissal. 102 In that matter, the Court found that as a result of the lack of effective access to judicial protection whereby the competent authorities might make the pertinent decisions, the victims found themselves in a situation of “defenselessness and uncertainty.” 103 112. In this case, the IACHR considers that Mrs. Maldonado was denied a remedy to seek a review of the penalty imposed and an effective remedy to protect her from the violations of due process and the principle of legality in the context of the administrative proceeding. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the State of Guatemala violated the rights recognized in Articles 8.2.h and 25 of the American Convention, taken in conjunction with Article 1.1 of that instrument, to the detriment of Mrs. Maldonado. V. CONCLUSIONS 102 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 158, par. 120. 103 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado-Alfaro et al.) v. Peru. Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C. No. 158, par. 150. 21