40 to ensure to all persons subject to their jurisdiction the free and full exercise of the rights established in the Convention (Article 1(1)).64 107. The Court recalls that the purpose of international human rights law is to provide the individual with the means of protecting internationally recognized human rights before the State. In the international jurisdiction, the parties and the issue in dispute are, by definition, different from those in the domestic jurisdiction.65 When establishing the international responsibility of the State for the violation of the human rights embodied in Articles 8(1) and 25 of the American Convention, a substantial aspect of the dispute before the Court is not whether judgments or administrative decisions were issued at the national level or whether certain provisions of domestic law were applied with regard to the violations that are alleged to have been committed to the detriment of the alleged victims of the facts, but whether the domestic proceedings ensured genuine access to justice, in keeping with the standards established in the American Convention, to determine the rights that were in dispute.66 108. Before examining the specific and pertinent arguments of the parties, the Court deems it essential to emphasize the context in which the facts of this case occurred and the general actions adopted by the State subsequently. In this regard, this case is situated in a historical context during which numerous irregular dismissals took pace in the public sector. This was acknowledged by the State as of 2001 when it enacted “laws and administrative provisions ordering a review of the collective dismissals in order to provide the employees who had been dismissed irregularly with the possibility of claiming their rights” (supra para. 89(31)). Among these measures, one of the most important was Act No. 27487 of June 21, 2001, which ordered the establishment of Special Committees to review the collective dismissals carried out within the framework of personnel evaluation procedures. One of these was the Special Committee responsible for reviewing the collective dismissals of the congressional personnel (supra para. 89(32)), even though it did not include the alleged victims in this case in its conclusions (supra para. 89(33)). In addition, a “Multisectoral Commission” was established, responsible, inter alia, for assessing the viability of the suggestions and recommendations contained in the final reports of the Special Committees; and Act No. 27586 was promulgated to implement its recommendations (supra para. 89(34)). Indeed, Peru asked the Court, should it declare that there had been a violation of the Convention, to accept the State’s “commitment […] to establishing a Multisectoral Commission to review […] the respective dismissals and grant benefits […] to the employees considered [alleged] victims in the Inter-American Commission’s application, following the guidelines established in the legal norms ordering the review of the collective dismissals” (infra para. 139(a)). These actions show that the State has acknowledged this context and has expressed its willingness to establish the possibility for those affected by this situation to claim or repair certain prejudicial consequences thereof, to some extent. 64 Cf. Case of Goiburú et al., supra note 8, para. 110; Case of Claude Reyes et al.. Judgment of September 19, 2006. Series C No. 151, para. 127, and Case of Ximenes Lopes, supra note 9, para. 175. 65 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres. Judgment of July 1, 2006. Series C No. 148, para. 365; Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”. Judgment of September 15, 2005. Series C No. 134, para. 211, and Case of the Serrano Cruz Sisters . Judgment of March 1, 2005. Series C No. 120, para. 56. 66 Cf. Case of the Ituango Massacres, supra note 65, para. 339; Case of the Pueblo Bello Massacre, supra note 6, para. 206, and Case of the “Mapiripán Massacre”, supra note 65, para. 211.