7 43. The petitioners also allege that once the police officer involved had served 18 months in prison for the death of José Luis García Ibarra, he rejoined the ranks of the police force, in violation of the Police Personnel Law, under which any police office sentenced to prison must be dismissed. The petitioners indicate that the only explanation for this is that the public authorities either supported or at least tolerated the behavior of the police officer in question. They add that the same police officer had stood trial in 1985 for attempted murder and, subsequent to the case of José Luis García Ibarra, stood trial yet again for another attempted murder. The petitioners report that the police officer was finally dismissed as he was not deemed suitable for promotion to the next higher rank, but not because of the violations he had committed. 44. In their most recent communication, the petitioners presented the complete judicial file to sustain their allegations. B. The State 45. The State argues that the case should be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that the facts alleged do not constitute a violation of human rights attributable to the State. It argues that what the petitioners want is for the Commission to review the proceedings in the domestic courts and determine whether its judgment contains errors of fact or of law. It observes that the Commission does not have the authority to act as a higher court or court of fourth instance or to review the rulings issued by domestic courts acting in accordance with due process. It also argues that whether favorable or unfavorable, the rulings handed down by the competent courts were the appropriate ones to resolve the petitioners’ situation, and that courts were respectful of all the judicial guarantees. 46. The State mentions that the Commission is not competent to decide the guilt or innocence of the accused and underscores the fact that the inter-American human rights system is secondary to the domestic law of States, which is why if a violation has been redressed by the State internally, the Commission cannot take cognizance of the matter. 47. With regard to Article 1(1) of the American Convention, its contends that the State has complied with its obligations to conduct a serious investigation of the crime and to punish those responsible, since a conviction was handed down and the sentence was carried out against the citizen responsible for the death of José Luis García Ibarra. 48. It observes that the right to life has been protected on the basis of the constitutional provisions that guarantee rights, and argues that within its domestic legal system, the State has set up a complete system of criminal procedure whose purpose is to conduct effective investigations that succeed in punishing those guilty of violations. It observes that in this particular case, the sentence imposed and executed by the Esmeraldas Criminal Court following a serious investigation and a trial with the necessary guarantees, demonstrates the existence of an adequate and effective remedy for investigating a violation of the American Convention. It argues that international responsibility cannot be attributed to the State for a crime that, although committed by one of its agents, was not done with the State’s tolerance or acquiescence, because it was determined the criminal responsibility of a “bad element” in the National Police Force. 49. As for the supposed violation of judicial guarantees, the State’s contention is that the domestic courts got to the truth through a complex process that culminated with a sentence, which the guilty party effectively served. It adds that it was an impartial court that delivered a verdict in