present case, this was a valid remedy to attempt to correct the legal right violated in this case, concerning the alleged violation of the right to due process. 43. Also, the Commission observes that to reclaim their violated rights, the petitioners initially opted to file a petition seeking amparo relief, since their claims involved a violation of constitutional rights. When the Constitutional Court dismissed the petition, they attempted to file an adversarial administrative action, which the Constitutional Court had indicated was the proper remedy for protection of their rights. Despite making every effort to get their claim settled under the domestic legal system, their adversarial administrative action was dismissed on the grounds that it was filed after the legal deadline. The Commission, however, considers that based on the foregoing, it was reasonable for the petitioners to file the petition seeking amparo relief and then to file the adversarial administrative action since, based on the domestic case law on the subject, it was not clear which procedural avenue was the appropriate one to follow. It is important to note that this lack of clarity was affirmed by the Inter-American Court in its case law concerning a case of a similar nature that occurred during roughly the same time period as that of the present case in Peru. It was established that, considering the framework of practical and normative obstacles to the assurance of real access to justice, “the alleged victims had no certainty about the proceeding they should or could use to claim the rights they considered violated, whether this was administrative, under administrative-law, or by an action for amparo.”4 44. In this regard, it is the Commission’s consideration that in the present case the petitioners exhausted the adequate and effective remedies available to reverse the denounced situation, thereby fulfilling the requirements set forth. In that case, the IACHR considers that under the Convention’s requirements, the present conventional requirement is fulfilled with the exhaustion of the available means of action, without needing to exhaust other remedies that may be available afterwards. 45. The Commission therefore finds that in the present case, the petitioners exhausted the recourses that were available to them to remedy their situation and thus finds that the requirement set forth in Article 46(1) of the American Convention has been met. C. Deadline for lodging a petition 46. Under Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, a petition must be presented in a timely manner to be admitted, specifically within six months from the date on which the complaining party was notified of the final judgment from the domestic court. This six-month rule serves to guarantee legal certainty and stability once a decision has been adopted. 47. In the present case, the final judgment delivered at the domestic level was the decision handed down by the Labor Chamber of the Lima Superior Court on October 5, 2001 and reported to the petitioners on January 3, 2002. The Commission received the petition on March 8, 2002. The State did not enter an objection asserting a failure to comply with the six-month rule. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the petition was lodged within the period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 4 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees. (Aguado-Alfaro et al.). Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, par. 129. 9