44 the amparo inadmissible, finding that the appellants had not filed this recourse within the legally-established time period, as it was not necessary for them to “exhaust the prior mechanisms,” because “[article 27 of] Resolution No. [1239-ACACL] provided that no recourse of any kind would be admitted against the resolutions of the Commission to Administer the Patrimony of Congress, since it was the final instance”; in addition, it found that the alleged damage was irreparable (supra para. 89(23) and 89(25)). Consequently, the employees filed a special resource before the Constitutional Court, which confirmed the ruling of the Superior Court of Justice (supra para. 89(26) and 89(28)). In other words, neither the Superior Court nor the Constitutional Court considered the merits of the case, but rejected the recourse based on procedural or admissibility considerations and not on the said article 9 of Decree Law No. 25640. 122. The Court has interpreted that the terms of Article 25(1) of the American Convention imply: The obligation of the States to provide to all persons within their jurisdiction, an effective judicial remedy for violations of their fundamental rights [... and] for the application of the guarantee recognized therein not only to the rights contained in the Convention, but also to those recognized by the Constitution or laws.71 123. The Court has also considered that: The habeas corpus and amparo procedures are the essential judicial guarantees for the protection of various rights whose suspension is forbidden by Article 27(2) [of the Convention]; they also serve to preserve the legality of a democratic society.72 124. In addition to calling into question the grounds for the Constitutional Court’s decision that declared amparo inadmissible, the Commission argued, based on its precedents,73 that the alleged victims had the right to a decisoin on the merits of the matter from the judicial authorities. The State, on the other hand, cited other reports on merits issued by the Inter-American Commission74 and alleged that, even though in these other cases the courts of justice had not ruled on the merits of a case for procedural reasons, the Commission had not considered that the State had violated the right to an effective recourse. 71 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court , supra note 11, para. 89, citing Judicial Guarantees in States of Emergency (Arts. 27(2), 25 and 8 American Convention on Human Rights), supra note 70, para. 23. 72 Cf. Case of López Álvarez. Judgment of February 1, 2006. Series C No. 141, para. 92; Case of García Asto and Ramírez Rojas. Judgment of November 25, 2005. Series C No. 137, para. 112, and Case of Acosta Calderón. Judgment of June 24, 2005. Series C No. 129, para. 90. 73 In one case, the Commission considered that the failure to rule on the merits of the issue raised in an action for amparo eliminated the possibility of filing this action and, consequently, constituted a violation of the right embodied in Article 25 of the Convention (Cf. Report 48/00 of the Inter-American Commission of April 13, 2000, in the Walter Humberto Vásquez Vejarano case (11,166) v. Peru, para. 91). In addition, the Commission alleged that the decision concluding a judicial proceeding should not be merely formal, because it should examine the merits of the facts, verify whether they occurred as has been alleged and proved, since, if it fails to do this, the recourse becomes inconclusive and ineffective to protect the plaintiff from the violation and provide him with adequate reparation (Cf. Report 119/99 of the Inter-American Commission of October 6, 1999, in Susana Higuchi Miyagua (11,428) v. Peru, para. 54). 74 Cf. Inadmissibility Report 90/03 of the Inter-American Commission of October 22, 2003, in Gustavo Trujillo Gonzáles v. Peru, paras. 27, 28, 32 and 33.