56 181. The Court notes that, at the domestic level, Mr. Lagos del Campo filed at least seven appeals and several requests before the judicial organs of Peru251 – all of which were rejected for different procedural reasons – by which he tried to have the judgment that ratified the alleged unjustified dismissal annulled, referring, in particular, to his constitutional rights to job security and due process. This Court finds that the filing of the appeals for annulment and amparo at the appeal stage were particularly pertinent. In this regard, the Court points out the following relevant omissions in relation to these remedies. 182. First, in view of the fact that his defense brief of August 1, 1991, before the Second Court – in which he alleged that the reasons for his dismissal were unjustified – was not taken into consideration, in violation of article 9 of Supreme Decree 03-80-TR,252 Mr. Lagos continued contesting this omission before different courts. This Court notes that, in light of the appeal for annulment which was established in Supreme Decree 03-80-TR (supra, para. 62), the court that ratified the dismissal merely indicated that none of the causes for annulment had been met, without any further reasoning and without ruling on Mr. Lagos del Campo’s arguments or his constitutional rights. Subsequently, in the case of the application for amparo, the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima indicated that the said answering brief only contained arguments and not evidence. The omission was also expressly alleged before the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court, which did not rule in this regard. The Court notes that, according to the evidence provided in the instant case, when deciding the appeal, the Second Labor Court did not assess the brief filed by Mr. Lagos del Campo or his arguments concerning the rights allegedly violated in light of the dismissal, thus violating the adversarial principle (supra para. 66). 183. Second, Mr. Lagos filed a first application for amparo (1991) before the Civil Chamber of the Superior Court of Lima in which he alleged, among other matters, violations of his right to job security and due process of law, established in articles 48 and 233 of the Constitution. The Civil Chamber failed to decide the allegations relating to the substantive (constitutional) rights, and merely indicated that it had not determined a violation of due process and, therefore, declared the appeal inadmissible (supra, para. 63). In this regard, article 295 of the Constitution253 establishes the application for amparo, the purpose of which is to protect the rights recognized in the Constitution. 184. Thus, the Court considers that, even though the remedy of amparo was designed to protect constitutional rights, in this case the failure to consider the rights to job security and due process prevented the application for amparo from producing the result for which it was conceived.254 In this regard, the Court has indicated that the analysis that the competent authority makes of a Namely: (a) action requesting classification of the dismissal on July 26, 1989; (b) appeal for “review and reconsideration” on August 26, 1991; (c) appeal for annulment on September 2, 1991; (d) application for amparo on November 8, 1991; (e) appeal for annulment on August 26, 1992; (f) communication before the President of the Social and Constitutional Law Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on March 30, 1993; (g) appeal for review and request that the matter be heard by the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on April 28 and May 4, 1993; (h) appeal on July 18, 1997; (i) remedy of complaint filed on August 19, 1997; (j) remedy of complaint filed before the President of the Constitutional Court, on October 2, 1997. 251 Supreme Decree 03-80-TR. “Action in the labor and Labor Communities jurisdiction. Art. 9. The briefs that the parties submit to third parties shall be processed within 48 hours of their reception, under penalty of incurring responsibility” (evidence file, annex 2 del procedure before the IACHR, folio 720). 252 Cf. Congress of the Republic of Peru. Constitution of Peru July 12, 1979. Article 295. The application for amparo protects the rights recognized by the Constitution that have been violated or threatened by any authority, official or individual. The application for amparo follows the same procedure as the application for habeas corpus in the cases in which it is appropriate. 253 The Court has stressed that the obligation of Article 25 supposes that the remedy is “adequate,” which means that it function within the system of domestic law should be “appropriate” to protect the legal situation violated. Cf. Case of Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras, supra, para. 64, and Case of Maldonado Ordóñez v. Guatemala. Preliminary objections, merits, reparations and costs. Judgment of May 3, 2016. Series C No. 311, para. 109. 254