37 The State’s arguments 98. Regarding Article 25 of the Convention, the State alleged that: (a) Article 27 of Resolution 1239-A-92-CACL “was never applied to the internal procedures of the Public Administration designed to organize or operate its own activities or services”; (b) Although the complaint by way of the administrative proceeding was inadmissible, the dismissed employees could have used the judicial proceeding to assert the rights they considered had been violated; (c) The dismissed employees received erroneous advice and filed improper administrative recourses, eliminating the possibility of filing an action for amparo within the established time of their own accord; (d) The Twenty-eighth Civil Court considered that the action for amparo had not extinguished because it did not calculate the time from the date of publication of the resolutions dismissing the congressional employees; (e) The Constitutional Court’s decision was delivered in accordance with the formalities recognized by the American Convention; (f) Neither the judicial ruling that admitted the amparo procedure, nor the judicial ruling that revoked it, referred to article 9 of Decree Law No. 25640, which was not used to justify the declaration of the inadmissibility of the action for amparo; (g) The dismissed employees included in the resolutions ordering their dismissal and who filed the respective actions under administrative law within the legally-defined time period, obtained recognition of their violated rights, and were reinstated in Congress with recognition of their loss of earnings from the date of their respective dismissal; (h) On December 6, 2002, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment in another case in which it confirmed the findings of the judgment declaring the action for amparo filed by the alleged victims inadmissible. This shows that, at the time, this court, abided by the Constitution and the national laws, and (i) According to the case law of the Inter-American Court, the InterAmerican Commission has not interpreted the concept of effective recourse correctly in its application. 99. With regard to Article 8(1) of the Convention, the State alleged that the Constitutional Court had observed that, in some cases, it might be admissible for the extinguishment mechanism to be made more flexible so as to permit the examination of matters concerning merits. Nevertheless, it made it clear that, in the case of actions where there is a lack due diligence, such as the action in this case, together with the incorrect legal advice, it is not possible to dispense with the application of the procedural requirements.