42. The Commission observes that in this case the alleged victims filed the ordinary remedies provided for under Ecuadorian law: their defense from the criminal complaint and the motion for appeal. In their defense the alleged victims denied the commission of any crime and challenged the constitutionality of the provisions of the Criminal Code invoked in the criminal complaint against them and for that reason their inaplicability in trial. The Commission notes that on July 20, 2011, the Fifteenth Supervisory Criminal Court of Guayas issued the judgment of first instance, convicting the petitioners. That judgment was appealed and affirmed on September 20, 2011, by the Second Criminal and Traffic Division of the Provincial Court of Justice of Guayas. 43. The alleged victims also filed extraordinary remedies. The Commission observes that Emilio Palacio filed a petition for cassation against his conviction on September 27, 2011, and on September 30, 2011, the rest of the petitioners did the same. On September 4, the Second Criminal Division declined to entertain Emilio Palacio’s petition for cassation, and on October 4, 2011, he appealed that decision through a petition for review of a denied appeal. The petition for review of a denied appeal was granted, suspending the enforcement of the judgment against Emilio Palacio until the National Court of Justice adjudicated the petition for cassation filed by the other parties. Later, in a hearing held on February 16, 2012, the Criminal Division of the National Court of Justice dismissed the petition for cassation, rendering the conviction final and unappealable. 44. Finally, at the request of the complainant, in an order dated February 28, 2012, the National Court of Justice admitted the request for the pardon of the sentence and remission of the payment of damages and court costs, and ordered that the case be shelved. 45. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that this petition meets the requirement provided for in Article 46.1.a of the American Convention. 2 Timeliness of the petition 46. Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention establishes that, in order for the petition to be declared admissible, it must be filed within six months of the date on which the interested party was served notice of the final decision that exhausted the domestic remedies. The petitioners filed their complaint with the Commission on October 24, 2011. The ordinary remedies provided for under Ecuadorian law were exhausted on September 20, 2011, and the extraordinary remedies on February 16, 2012. The Commission concludes that the petition was filed within the time period established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. 3 Duplication of international proceedings 47. The case file does not contain any information to indicate that the subject of the petition is pending in another international proceeding, or that it duplicates a petition previously decided by the IACHR or another international body. Hence, the requirements set forth in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention have been met. 9