33 they would be resolved by the Constitutional Court appointed as of the removal of the petitioners, and which moreover had already indicated a view on the matter.” 95 129. The State argued that it is not admissible to allege a violation of the right enshrined in Article 25 of the American Convention, for in the instant case adequate domestic remedies were not pursued, namely, the constitutional motion or remedies available in the contentiousadministrative jurisdiction. 130. The Commission recalls that in the admissibility stage, particularly in the analysis of the requirement to exhaust domestic remedies, it ruled on the procedural effects of the failure to pursue the remedies noted by the State. In the merits stage it is up to the IACHR to rule on the petitioners’ arguments regarding the impossibility of presenting or taking amparo actions in the particular context in which they found themselves, and whether this situation affected their right to judicial protection. 131. In this respect, the Commission has considered it proven that on December 2, 2004 the Constitutional Court issued a decision by which it established that in order to suspend the effects of a legislative resolution for alleged violation of the Constitution the only action possible was the constitutional motion, which is to be filed before the Constitutional Court. Accordingly, it established that all the judges in the country should reject and not admit any amparo action filled in this vein. In addition, it was added that if he fails to do so, the respective judge could face judicial actions. 96 Several aspects of this decision should be highlighted. 132. First of all, the decision was adopted at the express request of the President of the Republic “to prevent trial judges from admitting for processing constitutional amparo actions against Parliamentary Resolution 25-160, adopted by the National Congress on November 25, 2004.” This resolution of the Constitutional Court constituted an express impediment to the victims being able to question the resolution that ordered their termination, and as such it implied eliminating the possibility of obtaining a pronouncement on the merits of the issue raised.” 97 133. In second place, the Commission notes that the Constitutional Court’s December 2, 2004 decision was based on an earlier resolution issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on June 27, 2001, in which it clarified a series of criteria relating to constitutional amparo. A reading of that resolution reveals that it cannot be use as grounds for the inadmissibility of amparo remedies for challenging Congress’s termination resolution. Thus, what the Supreme Court of Justice established on June 27, 2001, was that amparo was inadmissible against regulatory provisions and resolutions of a general nature, since unconstitutionality suits were admissible with respect to them. 134. The Commission holds that the resolution whereby the National Congress terminated the justices of the Supreme Court can in no way be considered a resolution of general nature, in that it disposed of the victims’ rights and interests, affecting them in a particular way that could not be challenged by means of an unconstitutionality suit which, by nature, is general and abstract. In addition, by their nature, the formal requirements for going forward with an unconstitutionality suit do not meet the characteristics of swift and effective judicial action established by the Convention. The Commission therefore believes that the Constitutional Court’s decision of December 2, 2004, was grounded on a contradictory interpretation of the text of the Supreme Court’s resolution of June 27, 2001, which it claimed to use as its basis. 95 Annex 29. El Comercio, La reorganización fue legal y constitucional: Sicouret, December 12, 2004 (annex to the petitioners’ initial 96 Annex 16. Decision of the Constitutional Court of December 2, 2004 (annex to the petitioners’ initial petition). 97 IACHR, Report No. 48/00, Case 11,166, Merits, Walter Humberto Vásquez Vejarano, Peru, April 13, 2000, para. 91. petition).