5 b. Miguel Ángel González Mendoza: the Second Criminal Chamber of the city of Neuquén denied, in a May 14, 1997 decision, a request made on behalf of Mr. Miguel Ángel González Mendoza for his prompt return to Unit No. 9 of Neuquén. Defense attorney Mr. López filed a cassation appeal against this ruling, which in turn was dismissed by the Superior Court of Neuquén in its Judgment No. 55/1997. An extraordinary federal appeal was filed against this decision, which was denied by the same Superior Court of Justice in its Interlocutory Decision No. 73 of April 21, 1998. Against this decision defense counsel filed a motion for admission of a denied appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, which was dismissed by this court in an August 6, 1998 ruling. c. José Heriberto Muñoz Zavala: regarding his case, the petitioners claim that the same procedural steps as in the cases of Néstor Rolando López and Miguel Ángel González were exhausted. Thus, the last judicial decision adopted regarding his request for his transfer to the Province of Neuquén was an August 6, 1998 ruling in which the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed a motion for admission of a denied appeal filed on his behalf. This ruling is in the petition’s case file. d. Julio Eduardo Gómez: the Second Criminal Chamber of the city of Neuquén decided, in Interlocutory Order No. 353/2001 of November 8, 2001 to deny in limine a habeas corpus petition filed on behalf of Mr. Julio Eduardo Gómez, with the purpose of obtaining an order for his return to a penitentiary facility in the Province of Neuquén. A cassation appeal was filed against this decision, which was dismissed by the Superior Court of Neuquén in Judgment No. 26/2002 of September 24, 2002. e. Cristian Eduardo Crespo: the Second Criminal Chamber of the city of Neuquén issued Interlocutory Order No. 367/2002 of August 6, 2002, denying an urgent request filed on behalf of Mr. Cristian Eduardo Crespo for his return to a penitentiary unit in the Province of Neuquén. A cassation appeal was filed against this judgment, which was declared to be inadmissible by the Superior Court of Neuquén in its Interlocutory Decision No. 109 of October 24, 2002. f. Hugo Alberto Blanco: the Second Criminal Chamber of the city of Neuquén issued, on November 22 and 23, respectively, interlocutory orders No. 329 and No. 333 denying habeas corpus petitions filed in favor of Mr. Hugo Alberto Blanco requesting his transfer to a facility in the Province of Neuquén. 25. The petitioners have generally claimed that domestic judicial remedies have been exhausted with the submission of formal petitions for prison transfer. In some of the cases submitted, the alleged victims requested their transfer by filing habeas corpus petitions and, in others, through formal transfer requests. In both cases the Commission notes that the Second Criminal Chamber of the city of Neuquén, as the sentence enforcement court, was the competent tribunal to hear these petitions or requests. In addition, it can be inferred that the Superior Court of Justice of Neuquén (the highest court in the province), heard cassation appeals against the decisions denying the requests issued by the Second Criminal Chamber. 26. The State, for its part, although it invokes the lack of exhaustion of domestic remedies, does not explain which appropriate and effective remedies should have been exhausted. It does not explain, either, why it was necessary for the petitioners to use the cassation appeal before the Superior Court of Neuquén as the appropriate appeal to use in the context of the facts object of the complaint. 27. Based on the foregoing, it is the Inter-American Commission’s opinion that, pursuant to article 46(1)(a) of the petition, the exhaustion of domestic remedies has been proven by the petitioners regarding the following six alleged victims: Néstor Rolando López, Miguel Ángel González Mendoza, José Heriberto Muñoz Zavala, Julio Eduardo Gómez, Cristian Eduardo Crespo and Hugo Alberto Blanco. 28. With respect to the remaining alleged victims, the Commission does not have the necessary specific information to decide regarding compliance with this admissibility requirement. C. Timeliness of the petition