administrative decision, to review on appeal a decision of such a nature, as in this case ... and the fact that the decision handed down in accordance with the related provisions of law does not satisfy the interests of the challenger, does not make them unconstitutional.” 61 It concluded that "the foregoing leads to the conclusion that the action of unconstitutionality under examination here is patently inadmissible.” 62 55. On September 8, 2000, Olga Maldonado filed an appeal against the decision of September 6 of that year.63 Mrs. Maldonado reiterated the arguments advanced in her action of unconstitutionality of August 23, 2000.64 She added that she had pursued the procedure envisaged in Article 80 of the Personnel Rules of the Human Rights Ombudsman and that, despite that, she had been left “utterly bereft of legal protection” because the organs to which she had had recourse had abstained from taking up the case. 65 56. On October 9, 2001, the Constitutional Court declared Mrs. Maldonado's appeal inadmissible.66 The Court held that an action of unconstitutionality in a specific case should be aimed at preventing a tribunal hearing a particular case from applying the disputed provision in a future decision "provided that the judge accepts the argument of the challenger that its application in the case would be contrary to the constitutional precepts indicated by the applicant.” 67 57. The Constitutional Court found in the case that the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters had “already applied the specific provisions being challenged in the case, making its review innocuous and ... because the interested party did not challenge the application of the provisions through the appropriate procedure, which would have enabled her to discuss their unconstitutionality in the proper jurisdiction.”68 The Commission notes that in its ruling, the Constitutional Court did not state which would have been the suitable remedy that Mrs. Maldonado should have invoked to challenge her dismissal. B. Legal analysis 1. Right to a fair trial, principle of legality,69 and right to judicial protection (Articles 8, 9, and 25 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1[1] of that treaty) 58. Article 8 of the American Convention provides: 1. Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the 61 Annex 20. Decision of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated September 6, 2000. Appendix 12 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 62 Annex 20. Decision of the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, dated September 6, 2000. Appendix 12 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 63 Annex 21. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, constituted as Constitutional Court, dated September 8, 2000. Appendix 13 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 64 Annex 21. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, constituted as Constitutional Court, dated September 8, 2000. Appendix 13 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 65 Annex 21. Brief of Olga Maldonado to the Second Division of the Court of Appeals in Labor and Social Security Matters, constituted as Constitutional Court, dated September 8, 2000. Appendix 13 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 66 Annex 22. Decision of the Constitutional Court of October 9, 2001. Appendix 14 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 67 Annex 22. Decision of the Constitutional Court of October 9, 2001. Appendix 14 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. 68 Annex 22. Decision of the Constitutional Court of October 9, 2001. Appendix 14 to the initial petition of July 15, 2002. Under the principle iura novit curia, the Commission finds it pertinent to analyze the principle of legality recognized in Article 9 of the American Convention. The State has been afforded the opportunity to exercise its right to contradict and express its position on the facts that support this analysis. 69 12