52 4. Domestic legal effects 164. In relation to the argument concerning Article 5(h) of Law No. 24514 (supra paras. 85 and 86), in force at the time of the facts, based on the reasons given in the preceding section (supra para. 123 ), the Court concludes that the State is not responsible for the violation of Article 2 of the Convention. 165. Regarding the argument concerning the law currently in force, in relation to article 25 of Legislative Decree No. 728 of March 27, 1997 (supra para. 86), the Court notes that this law derogated Law No. 24514 of June 5, 1986 (supra para. 55), that it was not applied to the facts of this case, and that this was expressly recognized by the representatives. In this regard, the Court considers that it does not have to issue a ruling or make an analysis of this instrument, because the purpose of its contentious jurisdiction is not to review domestic laws in abstract. 235 5. General conclusion 166. Therefore, the Court finds that the State, based on the dismissal of Mr. Lagos del Campo from his job, violated his rights to job security (Article 26 in relation to Articles 1(1), 13, 8 and 16 of the Convention) and to freedom of expression (Articles 13 and 8 in relation to Article 1(1) of the Convention). This had repercussions on his labor representation and right to freedom of association (Articles 16 and 26 in relation to Article 1(1), 13 and 8 of the Convention), which had an impact on his professional, personal and family life. VII-2 ACCESS TO JUSTICE (ARTICLES 8 AND 25 OF THE AMERICAN CONVENTIONA) A. Arguments of the parties and of the Commission 167. The representatives alleged the violation of Article 8 of the Convention, particularly in relation to the right to appeal a judgment. In this regard, they referred to the actions taken by Mr. Lagos del Campo as a result of his dismissal, when “he took various measures addressed, first, to obtain reinstatement in his job […].” They then referred to the different actions filed by Mr. Lagos del Campo, in which he alleged the violation of his right to job security and to due process of law established in articles 48 and 233 of the Constitution, and requested the annulment of the second instance decision claiming that it had been arbitrary. They added that on August 13, 1992, the Fifth Civil Chamber decided to declare that the application for amparo was inadmissible without considering that the Second Labor Court’s failure to process Mr. Lagos del Campo’s brief constituted a breach of due process. They also indicated that, during the amparo proceedings, the Constitutional and Social Chamber decided to declare that the said decision was valid, which also violated the obligation to give a reasoned judgment, because it merely reproduced the arguments of the Public Prosecution Service. They added that Mr. Lagos del Campo was unable to contest the judicial decisions because the Court of Constitutional Guarantees had been suspended following the 1992 coup d’état by Alberto Fujimori and the removal of the justices of the Constitutional Court. They also indicated that, when the Constitutional Court was re-established in 1996, Mr. Lagos del Campo requested that the amparo proceedings be raised before that court but, “incredibly,” the Third Specialized Civil Chamber declared his request inadmissible, requiring that he file a cassation appeal, “which was not available at that time owing to the cessation of the justices who were members of the Court of Constitutional Guarantees, therefore violating his right to contest judicial decisions. Cf. Case of Genie Lacayo v. Nicaragua. Preliminary objections. Judgment of January 27, 1995. Series C No. 21, para. 50, and Case of J. v. Peru, supra, para. 213. 235