35. With respect to the allegations of petitioner Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya (P 12.214), regarding alleged violations of Articles II and XIV of the American Declaration, the Commission observes that the rights that the Peruvian State undertook to respect as party to the Charter of the OAS, are stipulated in said instrument, which is a source of international obligations. 10 Nonetheless, as of the moment Peru ratified the American Convention that instrument became its main source of obligations in the context of the inter-American system for the promotion and defense of human rights. 11 In that regard, and mindful that the American Convention enshrines the rights alleged by Mr. Carlos Alberto Canales Huapaya to have been violated, the analysis in the section on whether the allegations tend to establish a violation will be based on that instrument. 12 B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 36. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for a complaint submitted to the Inter-American Commission to be admissible under Article 44 of the Convention, one must have first pursued and exhausted domestic remedies in keeping with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is aimed at allowing the domestic authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve it before it is brought before an international body. 37. The petitions considered in the instant report argue that the alleged victims filed amparo actions to challenge their dismissals, obtain their reinstatement, and secure payment of the salaries and benefits not received. As regards petition 157-99, the Peruvian State did not argue failure to exhaust domestic remedies; accordingly it tacitly waived that defense. 13 The information available indicates that on September 25, 1998, the Constitutional Court declared the amparo action brought by the alleged victims in that petition to be unfounded, ending the judicial proceeding. 38. As regards petition 12.214, in its initial communications the State alleged that it was submitted after the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention had lapsed. In subsequent briefs, it asserted that the alleged victim did not exhaust the suitable judicial remedy provided for in domestic legislation, which it said is the contentious-administrative action. In the Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.), against Peru, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights indicated that the intervention in the organs entrusted with the administration of justice by the Executive Branch, as well as the legal restrictions on challenging the result of the process of evaluating the personnel of the Congress of the Republic resulted in an environment of uncertainty for the former workers of that institution “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.” 14 39. Based on the foregoing considerations, and mindful of the circumstances of the petitions under examination, the IACHR concludes that since they pursued the remedies that culminated in the decisions of the Constitutional Court, of September 25, 1998, in relation to petition 15799, and August 6, 1998, in relation to petition 12.214, the alleged victims complied with Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 10 I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Advisory Opinion OC-10/89 of July 14, 1989. Series A No. 10, paras. 43 to 46. 11 Id., para. 46. 12 IACHR, Report No. 38/09, Case 12,670, Peru, National Association of Ex-Employees of the Peruvian Social Security Institute et al., March 27, 2009, para. 68. 13 IACHR, Report No. 62/10, Petition 142-03, Jorge Sedano Faclón et al. (Peru), March 24, 2010, para. 31; and Report No. 10/09, Petition 4071-02, Mercedes Eladia Farelo (Argentina), March 13, 2009. paras. 36 and 37. 14 I/A Court H.R., Case of the Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al.). Judgment of November 24, 2006. Series C No. 158, para. 129. 7