7. The petitioners maintain that on May 18, 2000, the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman ordered Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez’ removal from her posts, even though she had disproved each and every one of her brothers’ allegations. The petitioners add that the acts reported by her siblings were apparently crimes, yet at no time were those acts brought before the courts. The petitioners insist that the arguments for her dismissal were based on the damage that the complaint against her might cause the institution, even though the dispute concerned a purely personal matter. The dismissal took effect by means of Order 81/2000, issued by the Human Rights Ombudsman on May 16, 2000, which invoked Article 74 (4) and 74 (15) of that institution’s Personnel Regulations regarding offenses committed against property that harm the institution and illegal acts committed for the purpose of harming the institution. 8. They also state that, for health reasons, on May 18, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez submitted her definitive resignation from the temporary post of Departmental Assistant and from the permanent position she held as a teacher; and that, when her health recovered, she withdrew her resignation in writing in a document dated May 22, 2000, and signed in the presence of a notary public. 9. As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners report that on May 23, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez filed an appeal with the National Civil Service Office. They also report that on May 29, 2000, that Office determined that it lacked the administrative competence to consider questions relating to the reinstatement or payment of employees, by virtue of the provisions governing State institutions and agencies. On June 2, 2000, Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez filed an appeal with the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman. Her appeal was declared groundless by the Head of that Office’s Human Resources Unit in Official Letter No. 285-2000-URH, dated June 16, 2000. In that letter, the Ombudsman’s Office states that that the submission of her resignation from the post was proof that the alleged victim had accepted her dismissal. 10. The petitioners argue that, acting in accordance with Article 80 of the Personnel Regulations of the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman, Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez filed an appeal with the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Labor and Social Security Matters, which, on June 26, 2000, decided not to hear the case, since the appropriate body of law giving the Court of Appeals jurisdiction in this matter was the Labor Code and not the Personnel Regulations. They argue that on August 24, 2000, they challenged the constitutionality of that decision before the Second Chamber, pointing out that application of the articles of the Labor Code and the Civil Service Act was unconstitutional, because it impeded the access to justice contemplated in the Constitution. They add that, on September 6, 2000, the Court of Appeals dismissed the constitutionality challenge and reiterated that it could not base its jurisdiction on a regulation. The petitioners claim that, through the decision of the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals for Labor and Social Security Matters, the Guatemalan State prevented access to justice and due process to the detriment of Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez. 11. Finally, on September 9, 2000, the petitioners report that they appealed to the Constitutional Court, challenging the constitutionality of the decision handed down by the Second Chamber of the Court of Appeals. On October 9, 2001, the Constitutional Court dismissed the appeal, arguing that proper channels had not been followed. B. Position of the State 12. The State asserts that, in effect, Mrs. Olga Yolanda Maldonado Ordóñez was dismissed from her position. It also claims that the Office of the Human Rights Ombudsman has a copy of the release form and receipt signed by Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez on May 31, 2001, showing payment of Q11,727.48, which covered her retirement vacation, annual bonus (bonus 14), specific performance, vacation bonus, and Christmas bonus, all of these relating to the period between December 1999 and May 2000. The State adds that Mrs. Maldonado Ordóñez signed a full and complete release giving up the right to seek any further compensation from her employer through civil, criminal, administrative, commercial, or, especially, labor procedures, and indicating by her signature of the document that she was satisfied with the settlement she 2