5 B. The State 24. In response the petitioners’ complaint, the State argues that the alleged victim made full use of the various remedies available under Ecuadorian law and that the fact that those remedies were unfavorable to the petitioners does not make them ineffective. It alleges that the petitioners are trying to use the Commission as a fourth instance court, in that they limit themselves to alleging that the decision is incorrect and unjust but not to proving that the judicial decision was issued without adherence to the limits of due process. 25. In this regard, the State indicates that in order for the Commission to be able to rule on irregularities in judicial proceedings, the requirements defined in the American Convention must be taken into account, i.e., that “if they presented information establishing that the trial was not impartial because the judges were corrupt, or were biased for racial, religious, or political reasons against them, the Commission would be competent to examine the case under Articles 8, 21, and 25 of the Convention.” 2 26. Regarding the requirement on prior exhaustion of domestic remedies as established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention, the State alleges that the framework of the new Constitution has incorporated new jurisdictional guarantees to which individuals may have recourse when they believe that their rights have been violated, namely the action for protection (Article 88 of the Constitution of 2008 3), action for failure to act (Article 93 of the Constitution of 2008 4) and the extraordinary action for protection (Article 94 of the Constitution of 2008 5). In view of the above, the State alleges that the petitioners still had available to them judicial remedies that should be attempted before petitioning the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. 27. Finally, based on the above considerations, the State asks the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 2 The State refers to IACHR. Report No. 39/96, Case 11.673, Santiago Marzioni, Argentina, October 15, 1996, para. 62. 3 The State refers to Article 88 of the Constitution: “the action for protection shall seek the direct and effective protection of the rights protected in the Constitution, and may be filed when there is a violation of constitutional rights, due to acts or failures to act by any non-judicial governmental authority; against government policies when they suppose the deprivation of the enjoyment or exercise of constitutional rights; and when the violation proceeds from a specific individual, if the violation of the right causes serious damage, if he provides improper public services, if he acts by delegation or concession, or if the person affected is in a subordinate, indefensible, or discriminatory position.” Official letter 13215 of the Office of the Attorney General dated March 30, 2010, sent via Note. 4-2-109/2010 of April 4, 2010. 4 The State refers to Article 93 of the Constitution: “the action for failure to act shall seek to guarantee the implementation of the laws that make up the legal system, as well as the enforcement of decisions or reports from international human rights organizations, when the law or decision whose implementation is sought contains an express, clear, and binding obligation to do or not do something. The action shall be filed with the Constitutional Court.” Official letter 13215 of the Office of the Attorney General dated March 30, 2010, sent via Note No. 4-2-109/2010 of April 4, 2010. 5 The State refers to Article 94 of the Constitution: “the extraordinary action for protection shall be admissible against final decisions or orders in which rights recognized in the Constitution have been violated through action or failure to act, and they shall be filed with the Constitutional Court. The remedy shall be admissible when ordinary and extraordinary remedies have been exhausted within the legal timeframe, unless the failure to file these remedies was attributable to the person holding the violated constitutional right.” Office letter 13215 of the Office of the Attorney General dated March 30, 2010, sent via Note No. 4-2-109/2010 of April 4, 2010.