35. It reports that there are still adequate and effective remedies for protecting the alleged victims in the criminal justice system of the Brazilian legal order, including as regards application of provisions of the American Convention. It adduces that they can still bring a Special Appeal (Recurso Especial) before the Superior Tribunal de Justiça, and an Extraordinary Appeal (Recurso Extraordinário) before the Supremo Tribunal Federal. And there may be, in the event that there is a failure to follow up on any of the appeals mentioned, a bill of review (Agravo de Instrumento) in order to ensure the processing of the appeal(s) in which followthrough has been denied. 36. The Brazilian State adduces that with respect to possible civil actions for reparation for damages caused by Mr. Tahara and the NIPOMED Clinic, or by the Brazilian State, the petitioner failed to comply with the admissibility requirements provided for in the American Convention. It also mentions that no document was attached to show that any civil action for reparation of damages was brought, showing that the petitioner and the alleged victims disregarded the judicial protection of the Judiciary in terms of seeking compensation for the unlawful acts alleged. 37. It argues that there was no unwarranted delay by the Brazilian Judiciary, and that the petitioner failed to prove that there was. 38. The Brazilian State asks the IACHR not to take cognizance of the petition, based on its lack of competence with respect to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and ILO Convention 111, as well as the provisions of the Protocol of San Salvador. As regards the provisions of the American Convention, it argues that the petitioner has failed to meet the requirements for admissibility of the complaint. It also seeks publication of the report on lack of competence and inadmissibility in the next Annual Report of the Commission, and reserves the right set out at Article 38.1 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure for possible observations on the merits. IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 39. Competence ratione personae: Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. 40. The petitioner is a legally recognized non-governmental organization, thus it has standing to submit a petition to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. As regards the State, the Federative Republic of Brazil ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on September 25, 1992. The Commission observes that the facts that characterize racial discrimination are not directly attributed to the State, but to a private individual. Actually, the alleged violations by the State have to do with its response, through the judicial organs, to the situation raised by the alleged victims when they sought judicial protection. 41. The IACHR is competent ratione materiae to examine the complaint submitted, as it is the regional organ vested with the power to look into complaints alleging human rights violations in the Americas, as set out in Article 33.a of the American Convention. This organ is fully competent to hear allegations of violations of the rights enshrined in Article 1 (obligation to respect rights) and Article 24 (equality before the law) of the American Convention. As regards the articles of the Protocol of San Salvador, the IACHR is only competent to examine alleged violations