before the Commission and the I/A Court of H.R. In particular, the State asserts that Beatriz had access to justice system mechanisms in the form of the amparo action, in the course of which an effort was made to expedite the proceedings by bunching together the different steps involved, given the biological changes being undergone by the plaintiff. The State adds that the IACHR's recommendations to the State in case 12.249, Jorge Odir Miranda Cortez et al. against El Salvador were taken into consideration during processing of the amparo action, because, even though amparo proceedings comprise a series of procedures and forwarding of data to the parties by legal deadlines, in the instant case, given its nature and urgency, the Constitutional Chamber decided to join procedural steps together and omit data-forwarding contemplated in the law, without thereby contravening the adversarial principle, while observing the rights of the parties to be heard and to defend their case. 15. The State mentions that during the process a precautionary measure was issued that sought to safeguard Beatriz’s right to life and health, while weighing the right to life of the nasciturus, and ordering that suitable medical procedures be followed. For that reason, according to the State, the Constitutional Chamber's analysis of compliance with the measure was based on the standard of obligations to safeguard, which principally refer to means, not end results. It was on that understanding that, after ascertaining satisfactory compliance with the obligation to safeguard the right to life and health, the SC-CSJ had decided to acquit the authorities accused and to reiterate their obligation going forward. 16. The State asserts that at all times medical personnel acted with technical and scientific autonomy in deciding the best treatment for Beatriz's condition and that they provided her with conditions conducive to her mental and emotional health, such as a private space near the nurses so as to facilitate monitoring of her condition, arrangements that took her sensitivity to light into consideration, and permission to be accompanies and receive visits from family members. Thus, the State claims that it indeed took the necessary steps from a medical science perspective to ensure due protection of Beatriz's rights. It further points out that given the provision of the Constitution that recognizes a biological fact when it provides that life and the consequent right to life begin at the moment of conception, the State took steps to preserve the life of the fetus, the outcome of which was unsatisfactory due to its anencephalic condition. VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION 17. The petitioners argue that despite the nonexistence of an appropriate remedy, they exhausted the amparo option, which would be the only one available by law, with all the limitations they describe. For its part, the State made no comments in this regard. On this, the Commission considers that given the argument of the lack of a specific remedy for promptly resolving a situation such as the one described above; that, according to the Law of Constitutional Procedures, there is no appeal against an amparo judgment; and that a judgment denying amparo precludes the filing of civil suits for reparation, the conditions for an exception contemplated in Article 46.2.a of the American Convention are given in this case, namely that there is no due legal process in the domestic law of the State in question to protect the allegedly violated right or rights. The IACHR received the petition on November 29, 2013, while the facts with which the petition is concerned are said to have begun to occur on March 14, 2013, and certain of their effects continue to this day. Therefore, in light of the context and characteristics of this case, the Commission considers that the petition was lodged within a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement regarding the timeliness of its presentation must be deemed met. VII. COLORABLE CLAIM 18. In view of the elements of fact and law presented by the parties and the nature of the matter brought to its attention, the IACHR considers that, if proven, the alleged facts relating to access to health, grave threats to life and personal integrity, violations of due process, the lack of legal characterization of the conduct constituting a crime of abortion, interferences into private life, lack of access to justice and judicial protection, and discrimination, the events reported could constitute possible violations of Articles 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 24, 25, and 26 of the American Convention, in conjunction with Articles 1.1 and 2 of that treaty, and of Article 7 of the Convention of Belém do Pará, to the detriment of Beatriz. The Commission further considers that the arguments in respect of the IACPPT require analysis during the merits phase of possible violations of Articles 1, 6, and 8 6