personnel” process in a context of the “inefficiency of the judicial institutions; absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality, and lack of clarity as to the remedy to be used to challenge collective dismissals.”66 Therefore, some differences exist among those who were declared to be victims in the above judgment and the alleged victims in this case, in that (iii) only 20 of the alleged victims in th present case filed writs of amparo before judicial bodies, while there is no information on actions filed by the remaining persons, and (iv) to date, the State has adopted measures directed to repair 14067 of the 184 alleged victims. This demonstrates that, in spite of the similarities, it is not possible to automatically extrapolate the conclusions that were reached in Canales Huapaya et al. and Aguado Alfaro et al. as the Commission and the representatives requested. Rather, the Court must analyze the specific situations in order to reach the appropriate conclusions. B.1.a) Situation of the alleged victims who did not present a writ of amparo 92. The Court recalls that, in Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, it held that the dismissed congressional employees in the so-called “streamlining of personnel” process confronted a generalized context of the “inefficiency of the judicial institutions, absence of guarantees of independence and impartiality and lack of clarity as to the remedy to be used to contest collective dismissals.”68 In that context, norms were issued that barred the filing of writs of amparo against the dismissals that impeded the alleged victims from access to an impartial and competent body with due procedural guarantees, which the Court deems a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. 93. The Court also finds that the alleged victims did not have an effective judicial remedy against acts that violated their rights. On this point, although the State maintains that the alleged victims had access to the administrative disputes jurisdiction, the generalized ineffectiveness of the judicial institutions and the lack of guarantees of independence and impartiality demonstrate that such a possibility is illusory (supra para. 31). In Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al. v. Peru the Court held that: this case occurred in the context of a situation of legal uncertainty promoted by laws that limited access to justice in relation to the evaluation procedure and eventual dismissal of the alleged victims, so that they did not have certainty about the proceedings they could or should resort to in order to claim the rights they considered had been violated. Consequently, without needing to determine the nature of the dismissals that have been verified, the Court found that the existing domestic recourses were ineffective, both individually and collectively, to provide an adequate and effective guarantee of the right of access to justice [….]69 94. The Court notes that this context continued at least until June 2001 when Law 2748770 derogated the norm that authorized the collective dismissals. The derogated norm, Decree- 66 Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 103. The State maintained that it had reviewed the dismissals of 141 persons, with respect to which it recognized their irregularity and that it has implemented specific actions to repair those persons. The Court notes that, within this group, the State included Jorge Ferradas Núñez, who was excluded from this case (supra para. 59). 67 68 Cf. Case of Canales Huapaya et al. v. Peru, supra, para. 103. Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.) v. Peru, supra, para. 146. Cf. Law 27487 of 2001 “Law that derogates Decree-Law 26093 and authorizes the creation of commissions charged with reviewing the collective dismissals in the public sector (evidence file, fs. 2516 to 2519). 69 70 26