8 accordance with the law and after weighing all the evidence and arguments. The State reasons that this alone should suffice to discard any argument relating to the sentence imposed and its potential effects. The State points out that while there was a delay in deciding the appeal seeking to have the annulment of the judgement, this in no way affected the process since the appeal did not prevent the sentence imposed from being served in full. 50. The State repeats that the requirements of due process set forth in the American Convention were observed. As for the right to be heard, it argues that the “ability to petition” was not denied and no personal or economic restriction was imposed. It adds further that the right to “allege” evidence, have evidence admitted and produce evidence was guaranteed and that the right to personal and juridical security was fully respected. It asserts that the right to a hearing by a competent judge was not simply preserved; but in addition claims could be elevated to higher courts by filing appeals. As for the so-called “derecho a la utilidad de la sentencia” [right to a judgment that serves a purpose], the State asserts that this right was observed irrespective of whether or not it served the petitioners’ interests or advanced their claims. 51. The State adds that to guarantee due process of law to the accused, the laws of Ecuador, like those of other countries, provide for the possibility of negative or positive conflicts of competence, in which a judge can either assert or deny jurisdiction over a case; a higher authority will have to resolve such a conflict. 52. As for the right to judicial protection, the State asserts that in the present case, the proper course of action was an investigation leading to prosecution of the party responsible for the violation. The State further asserts that the investigation culminated in a conviction and that no international responsibility can be attributed to the State if, once the police officer was convicted, the petitioners failed to avail themselves of the procedure for claiming civil reparations. 53. As for the petitioners’ allegation that the irregularities in the case were exposed in the Supreme Court’s findings, the State argues that the Supreme Court justices are independent and are free to interpret the law. It adds that even if delays in the criminal case were established, there are laws and procedures by which to impose sanctions; also, the National Council of the Judiciary is constantly scrutinizing the conduct of judges and courts. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 54. Under Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions with the Commission on the alleged victims’ behalf. The latter were under the jurisdiction of the Ecuadorian State on the date the alleged events occurred. Furthermore, Ecuador has been a State party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 55. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition inasmuch as it alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention, violations said to have occurred within the territory of Ecuador.