19. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis, inasmuch as the obligation to respect and ensure the Convention-protected rights was already in effect for the State on the date the alleged facts were said to have occurred. 20. Finally, the Inter-American Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected under the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law 21. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that for petitions lodged with the IACHR to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The preamble to the American Convention states that the Convention is met to complement and reinforce the protection afforded by the domestic laws of the States. The rule of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, therefore, gives the State the opportunity to settle the matter by its own laws before having to face an international proceeding, which is particularly valid in the international jurisdiction of human rights. 22. The exhaustion of domestic remedies requirement established in Article 46 of the American Convention refers to the available remedies that are adequate and effective for resolving an alleged human rights violation. The Inter-American Court has held that when, for reasons of fact or of law, the domestic remedies are not available to the petitioners they are exempt from the obligation to exhaust them.8 If the domestic remedy is conceived such that exercise of the remedy is for all practical purposes beyond the alleged victim’s reach, then the alleged victim is not required to exhaust it. 23. In the case of the constitutionality challenge, Article 277 of the Ecuadorian Constitution lists exactly who has standing to file such challenges and the requirements that must be met. 9 The Inter-American Commission considers that the rules governing the challenge are such that it was not a remedy that the alleged victims had immediately and directly available to them, since they would have had to collect the signatures of 1000 citizens or obtain a decision in their favor from the Ombudsman’s Office. The State, for its part, did not provide information as to the efficacy of the constitutionality challenge in other cases involving individual petitions, so that it has not demonstrated the effectiveness of this remedy vis-à-vis the domestic courts. The IACHR also considers that the petitioners’ argument as to the ineffectiveness of any action they might have filed with the Constitutional Court, composed of the very persons who had replaced the alleged victims, is also well founded and not disputed. Also, the case record shows that the Constitutional Court had already delivered a ruling stating its position on the inadmissibility of actions challenging the congressional resolution that had removed Miguel Camba Campos and the other justices from bench. In short, the constitutionality challenge was not a remedy that the petitioners would have had to pursue and exhaust before requesting the Inter-American Commission’s intervention. 8 I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b), American Convention on Human Rights). Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990. Series A No. 11, paragraph 17. 9 Art. 277.- Constitutionality challenges may be brought by: 1. The President of the Republic, in the cases stipulated in paragraph 1 of Article 276. 2. The National Congress, upon a resolution passed by a majority of its members, in the cases provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article. 3. The Supreme Court of Justice, upon a resolution by the full Court and in the cases described in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article. 4. The provincial or municipal councils, in the cases stipulated in paragraph 2 of that article. 5. One thousand enfranchised citizens, or any person who has obtained a decision in his or her favor from the Ombudsman’s Office, in the cases specified in paragraphs 1 and 2 of that article. The President of the Republic shall request the opinion provided for in paragraphs 4 and 5 of that article. (...) 5