petition with the Commission against a State must previously make use of the remedies offered by that country’s legal system. The principle of subsidiarity in the protection offered by the Convention requires that the substance of all petitions first be heard by domestic agencies. In the case at hand, neither the State nor the petitioner question the fact that Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel invoked and exhausted the administrative channels–both internally to the administration and under contentiousadministrative jurisdiction–which culminated, after the available remedies had been exhausted, with the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. 35. However, the State claims that this remedy was not appropriate; it therefore holds that Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel neither filed nor exhausted the available domestic remedies, in contravention of the terms of Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention. The Commission notes that Article 46(1)(a) mentions “generally recognized principles of international law,” which do not only refer to the formal existence of such remedies, but also to their being applicable and effective. As the Inter-American Court has stated: “adequate domestic remedies are those which are suitable to address an infringement of a legal right. A number of remedies exist in the legal system of every country, but not all are applicable in every circumstance.”6 The Commission believes that in this case it is incumbent upon the State to prove what remedies are available. In this regard, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that “the State claiming non-exhaustion has an obligation to prove that domestic remedies remain to be exhausted and that they are effective.”7 36. With regard to the channels that Ms. Perrone and Mr. Preckel should have used, the State noted that they could have filed suit against the State for damages arising from their separation from their jobs, including the claims contained herein. If their intent was to obtain redress for damages, then the channel they chose--that of contentiousadministrative proceedings--was incorrect. Moreover, when they went before the courts in 1988, they were uncertain about the existence of an administrative channel for redress, since the corresponding procedure began with Decree 70/91, which was published in the Official Bulletin on January 16, 1991. However, the State concludes that the object of the suit and the identification of the responsible area of government--the 6 Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of July 29, 1988, paragraphs 64. 7 Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, paragraph 88. 11