7 19. On May 7, 2001, the Commission transmitted the State’s communication to the claimants and granted them a term of one month to submit their comments. 20. On June 01, 2001, the claimants submitted a communication whereby they reported that on April 16, 2001, District Court Six for Penal Rights Protection of the Distrito Federal dismissed the amparo appeal motion filed on March 19, 2001, against the decision of Penal Section Seventeen of the Distrito Federal Superior Court concerning the recognition-of-innocence remedy filed by the alleged victim, since it concluded that it had not been filed in due time. The claimants added that “the way in which the District Court resolves its matters is one more example of the ineffectiveness and inefficiency of domestic remedies.” On June 8, 2001, the InterAmerican Commission transmitted the cited communication of the claimants to the State and allowed it one month to submit the comments that it would deem pertinent. 21. On July 12, 2001, the State submitted its comments to the information provided by the claimants on June 01, 2001, which included the following: in accordance with the information provided by the claimants, the amparo appeal motion filed with the Sixth District Court on Penal Rights Protection in the Distrito Federal was resolved on April 16, 2001. The resolution was issued in the sense that the case on trial had to be dismissed because of its having been filed extemporaneously. The claimants challenged the decision of the amparo judge by means of a revision remedy filed on May 3, 2001, which was heard by Circuit Court Five on Penal Matters in Distrito Federal. Once this Court makes its final decision, it shall be transmitted to the Commission. Regardless of what sense the final decision to be made by the Circuit Court will have, the Government wishes to inform [the Commission] that several criteria have been issued within the realm of the Federal Judicial Branch, concerning the appropriateness of the recognition-of-innocence remedy filed by the accused. Said criteria have stressed that the resolution that would have applied to the recognition-of-innocence petition is not per se an attack against the personal freedom of the complainant, and that, the procedure for challenging it through the amparo appeal motion is subject to the general procedural rules of this trial. In this sense, 15 days were allowed as of the adoption of the decision that declared the recognition-ofinnocence groundless or not applicable, to filed an amparo appeal hearing. […] The claimants’ failure to filed an amparo appeal hearing can in no way be blamed on authorities and, instead, proves that internal jurisdiction remedies were not duly exhausted. The recognition-of-innocence action could have been brought prior to the filing of the direct amparo appeal motion applicable against the second instance judgment, which reaffirms the fact that the claimants could have availed themselves of such remedy as of August 17, 1993, the date on which the second-instance judgment was handed down. 22. On August 10, 2001, the claimants requested the Inter-American Commission to hold a “hearing during the next session, in order to obtain a report on admissibility as soon as possible.” On August 27, 2001, the Commission informed that it would not be possible to satisfy the cited request by the representatives.