27. The State adds that the petitioners confuse the nature of the dismissal proceeding to argue that there was a violation of Article 8.2.h of the American Convention, but the dismissal proceeding is not of a criminal nature and there was no violation of this article. Furthermore, the existence of a possibility to challenge a decision in a higher court in the case of a clear violation of due process complies with that article. 28. In any event, the State says that the alleged victim’s case received a judicial review that resulted in an unfavorable decision. In this regard, it says that the Federal Supreme Court analyzed the violations alleged by Mr. Rico and did not recognize them in the case for lack of sufficient substantiation. The Court affirmed that the alleged victim had only challenged the evaluation of the evidence and that the Jury for Prosecution should have disregarded the evidence it took into account and relied on that which it rejected. The State says the petitioners confuse this unfavorable decision with the lack of a decision by a judicial organ. According to the State, the fact that the appeals presented by the alleged victim did not resolve the heart of the matter does not mean that Mr. Rico lacked access to judicial protection. The State affirms that its obligation to administer justice is with respect to means and not results. In addition, the State says that evaluation of evidence by domestic courts in the exercise of their competence is not subject to review at the international level, save in very limited exceptions. 29. With respect to the alleged violation of the rule of law, the State says Mr. Rico was removed from his position by an organ previously established by law because he incurred in causes (e), (f), and (k) of the Law of Prosecution, i.e., repeatedly demonstrated incompetence or negligence in the performance of his functions, repeatedly failed to perform the duties of the post, and allowed court terms to lapse repeatedly without ruling on matters submitted for his decision. According to the State, the petitioners’ allegation with respect to the lack of “criminalization” of the conduct attributed to Mr. Rico is due to their confusion over the nature of the proceeding for removal, which is political and not criminal. It adds that the conduct described in sections (e) and (f) of Article 21 of the Law of Prosecution are equivalent to the lack of the “good behavior” specified in Article 110 of the Constitution, which according to domestic courts has a broad meaning that cannot be defined except in a specific case. The State adds that cause (k) of Article 21 of the Law of Prosecution refers to “a very specific behavior that the Jury for Prosecution considered proved in this case.” Contradicting the position of the petitioners, the State says the fact that there was a proceeding against the alleged victim does not violate his right to have his honor respected and his dignity recognized. 30. Concerning the alleged violation of Article 21 of the Convention, the State says that the setting of court costs is a discretional act guided by legal parameters and that the amount set is not a violation. Moreover, the State argues that there is insufficient evidence to determine the truth of the allegation that a document was taken from the file of the case before the Jury for Prosecution. In any case, the State says that this document is related with the request to convert the embargoed amount from pesos to U.S. dollars; which would be outside the competence of the IACHR because it is part of the Government’s economic policy as expressed in the reservation made by the State when it deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention. 31. In conclusion, the State argues that because of improper exhaustion of remedies and the lack of characterization of rights protected in the American Convention, the petition is inadmissible and requests that the IACHR so declare. IV. ANALYSIS ON COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 32. The petitioner is entitled, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to present petitions to the Commission. The petition identified as the alleged victim an individual person for whom the State of Argentina was obligated to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. Argentina has been a State party to the American Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. The Commission has ratione loci competence to examine the petition, given that it alleges rights protected by the American Convention that allegedly took place in the territory of Argentina, a