30 particularly with regard to controlling constitutionality […] and the consequent examination of whether the State’s conduct was in harmony with the Constitution.”50 89(28) On November 24, 1997, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment, signed by the then justices Acosta Sánchez, Nugent, Díaz Valverde and García Marcelo, which confirmed the decision of the Fifth Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court of Justice (supra para. 89(25)). In this regard, the Constitutional Court found, inter alia, that: It should be clarified that […] the original complaint was filed on March 2, 1995, while […] the Resolutions that are alleged to have violated rights were issued on December 31, 1992. […] Although the plaintiffs filed a delayed claim using the administrative proceeding, the latter was legally inadmissible, because article 27 of Resolution No. 1239-A-92-CACL of October 13, 1992, established explicitly that “the Commission to Administer the Patrimony of the Congress of the Republic shall not admit complaints concerning the results of the examination”; this means that they are non-appealable acts, at least in the strictly administrative sphere. […] Consequently, since, according to the law, there is no prior proceeding to resort to, article 28(3) of the Act [on Habeas Corpus and Amparo] (No. 23506) is fully applicable; it establishes that exhaustion cannot be invoked when “the prior proceeding has not been established by law, or if it has been filed unnecessarily by the claimant, even though he was not obliged to do this;” consequently, the period for calculating the extinguishment of this action, according to article 37 of the said Act, began 60 working days after the violations, which means that this period had expired a long time before the complaint was filed. […] In any case, extinguishment is not a mechanism intended to prevent the examination of the merits of situations that are submitted to constitutional proceedings without any other justification. Nevertheless, it should be understood that, if the interested parties do not act at the appropriate time to claim the constitutional defense of their rights, they cannot subsequently expect that a rule that is so necessary and logical for legal certainty will be dispensed with. […] Moreover, it should not be overlooked that if, in the actual circumstances – that is, under the 1993 Constitution – the organic structure of Congress and, consequently, its Personnel Allocation Table, has varied substantially in relation to the one it had under the previous Constitution, it is not possible, via amparo, to re-establish situations that, by their very nature, have become irreparable, and in such circumstances, article 6(1) of Act No. 23506 is applicable.51 Other measures 89(29) In October 1993 and January 1994, two alleged victims in this case52 filed recourses under administrative law for, inter alia, the annulment or invalidation of the resolutions ordering their dismissal to be declared. The Lima Superior Court of Justice ruled that these recourses were inadmissible in November 1993 and December 1997.53 50 Cf. Case of the Constitutional Court , supra note 11, para. 112. 51 Cf. judgment of the Tribunal Constitutional of November 24, 1997 (file of appendixes to the application, tome I, appendix 13, folios 511 to 519). 52 Lino Roberto Ribotte Rodríguez and Antonieta Elizabeth Córdova Melgarejo. 53 Cf. administrative-law complaints filed by Lino Roberto Ribotte Rodríguez and Antonieta Elizabeth Córdova Melgarejo before the Lima Superior Court of Justice in October 1993 and January 1994 respectively; decisions of the Lima Superior Court of Justice of November 1994 and December 1997 (file of appendixes to the final arguments of the common intervenors, folios 5408 to 5424).