4 18. They allege that in a ruling of June 30, 2004 the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil declared the nullification of all actions taken by the Chamber of Associate Judges of the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil. They state that the Second Labor Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil ordered that the case be referred to the lower court for enforcement of the decision. 19. The petitioners allege that on January 24, 2005 the Fourth Labor Court proceeded to settle the items in the decision of April 24, 1996, including the bonus and the triple surcharge on unpaid compensation, which added to the other items owed amounted to approximately 366,000 dollars. However, they indicate that on March 10, 2005 the same Fourth Court proceeded to alter the decision and omitted those items, which added to the other items owed and settled amounted to approximately 27,700 dollars. They indicate that they filed an appeal for nullification, which was denied on July 18, 2005. They allege that they filed an administrative complaint against the Fourth Judge with the Judicial Council of Ecuador, which in a ruling of March 28, 2006 found that: Procedural action fails to carry out what is ordered in the final decision of April 24, 1996 and the ruling of June 19, 1997, issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayas […] ordering payment of amounts for the bonus established in […] the contract that is the subject of the dispute and sanctioned the judge with a base salary fine. 20. They state that in a ruling dated August 25, 2006 and reported on August 28, 2006, the Fourth Labor Judge proceeded to settle interest due in order to calculate the final balance owed to Juan José Meza. The final balance omitted the bonus and the triple surcharge on unpaid compensation, which added to the other items owed and settled amounted to approximately 29,300 dollars. They state that the final balance was allocated by the Club Sport Emelec and on August 31, 2006 the Fourth Judge ordered that the alleged victim appear to withdraw the balance. They allege that on the same date, August 31, 2006, they sought revocation of the order reported on August 28, 2006 and the alleged victim appeared to withdraw the balance. They allege that, after 17 pleadings, on May 9, 2007 the Fourth Court proceeded to transfer to the counterpart the petition for revocation and on May 28, 2007 the Fourth Court ordered that the case be sent to the archives. 21. They allege that the irregularities committed during the enforcement phase of the labor case, the unwarranted delay in the conduct of the process, and the lack of impartiality on the part of the judicial officers who heard the case have resulted in the violation of the rights to judicial guarantees and judicial protection protected in the American Convention to the detriment of Juan José Meza. 22. With respect to the admissibility of the complaint and particularly with respect to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners allege that those remedies were exhausted with the second instance decision issued by the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil on April 24, 1996 and the enforcement order of June 19, 1997. 23. Regarding the State’s allegation that they are seeking to use the Commission as a court of fourth instance (see III.B below), the petitioners allege that the Commission has indicated in its jurisprudence that it is empowered to “adjudicate irregularities of domestic judicial proceedings which result in manifest violations of due process or of any of the rights protected by the Convention.” 1 1 para. 61. The petitioners refer to IACHR, Report No. 39/96, Case 11.673, Santiago Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996,