165. Lastly, this Court concludes that the State did not violate the principle of legality enshrined in Article 9 of the American Convention, to the detriment of Messrs. Cuya Lavy, Valenzuela Cerna, Díaz Alvarado, and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse. VIII-2 RIGHT TO JUDICIAL PROTECTION, IN RELATION TO THE OBLIGATIONS TO RESPECT AND GUARANTEE RIGHTS and THE DUTY TO ADOPT DOMESTIC LAW PROVISIONS OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTION 157 A. Arguments of the Commission and the parties 166. The Commission pointed out that, in the current regulatory framework in the petitioners' evaluation and ratification procedure, it was established that the CNM's decisions were not reviewable in court, and that they could not be contested. Despite this, the Commission pointed out that the alleged victims Cuya Lavy, 158 Díaz Alvarado and Rodríguez Ricse 159 filed a writ of amparo against the CNM's decisions regarding their non-ratifications, which did not have the desired result. The Commission found that the alleged victims did not have a remedy for comprehensive review of the decision, nor did they have an effective judicial remedy provided for in the American Convention to protect the rights they considered violated. The Commission concluded that the State violated the right to appeal the judgment and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same instrument to the detriment of the alleged victims. 167. Regarding Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the representatives argued that the non-ratification resolutions issued by the CNM were not reviewable or actionable in the judicial sphere. They pointed out that Peruvian legislation did not foresee any ordinary, effective, and accessible remedy that would guarantee the appellant a comprehensive review of the decision. They concluded that the State violated the right to appeal the ruling and the right to judicial protection established in Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the same treaty, to the detriment of Mr. Cuya. 168. Regarding Walter Antonio Valenzuela Cerna, the representatives argued that there was a violation of due process when the various remedies filed and the constitutional actions for amparo were resolved ipso facto. They added that this way of processing and resolving appeals is ineffective and therefore incompatible with the right to judicial protection. They affirmed that the appeals filed by Mr. Valenzuela Cerna were denied by the 1993 Peruvian Constitution, the Organic Law of the Judiciary Council, and the various regulations of the evaluation and ratification process. They concluded that the State violated Articles 8(2)(h) and 25(1) of the Convention, in relation to Articles 1(1) and 2 of the said instrument to the detriment of Mr. Valenzuela. 169. The State referred to: (a) Inclusion of due process guarantees in the ratification procedure and substantiation for non-ratification decisions: through interpretations made by the Constitutional Court and the development of the regulations, they were providing guarantees with due process in the administrative proceedings and thus, from 2005 onwards, the former CNM had the obligation to substantiate its decisions, a criterion that was shared by the Constitutional Court in its change of jurisprudential criteria that imposed said obligation on the former CNM, (b) unquestionable nature of the decisions of the former CNM: national case law, and successive Articles 1(1), 2 and 25(1) of the American Convention. In the case of Jorge Luis Cuya Lavy, the appeal for amparo was denied on the grounds that the CNM decisions regarding the evaluation and ratification of judges are not reviewable. Finally, the extraordinary appeal was declared inadmissible, considering that only exceptionally can the function of ratification be reviewed, in cases of irregular exercise. 159 According to the Commission, in the case of Mr. Díaz Alvarado and Ms. Rodríguez Ricse, both were not ratified in 2001 and each filed a writ of amparo in 2006, when said possibility was enabled due to a change in case law in December 2004. The Constitutional Court dismissed the appeals, considering that the actions were prescribed because the 60-day period provided for in Article 44 of the Constitutional Code of Procedure had expired in excess. 157 158 42