6 the confession made by the former under torture, and sentenced him to 50 years in prison. 2. Said judgment was appealed and it was the Eighth Penal Section of the Distrito Federal Superior Court which had to examine the appeal motion filed under number 454/93. On August 17, 1993, the Eighth Section confirmed the first instance judgment. 3. In June 1997 Mr. Martín-del-Campo filed a direct amparo appeal motion against the final decision of the Distrito Federal Eighth Penal Section, which was referenced under number 2004/97-475. The amparo appeal judgment was handed down on December 2, 1997, and it confirmed the judgment appealed also on the basis of confessional evidence. 4. On April 5, 1999, Mr. Martín-del-Campo filed a recognition-of-innocence remedy with the Distrito Federal Superior Court, which admitted it and in turn forwarded it for study and consideration to Penal Section Seventeen under number RI-1/99. Penal Section Seventeen then handed down its final judgment on the matter on April 29, 1999, having found such remedy to be groundless and not applicable. […] 5. A complaint was filed through administrative channels with the Office of the Internal Comptroller of the Distrito Federal Attorney General’s Office which was identified as case number QC/0011/FEB-94 and, pursuant to the October 14, 1994, decision, judicial police officer Sotero Galván-Gutiérrez was found to be liable for having arbitrarily detained and beaten Mr. Alfonso Martín-del-Campo-Dodd, and for not having safeguarded the latter’s human rights. 6. In addition, a complaint claiming torture was filed with the Distrito Federal Attorney General’s Office On May 11, 1995, under preliminary investigation number SC/3839/95-03, which was not duly admitted and which was ultimately dismissed. 7. Complaints were likewise submitted to the National and the Distrito Federal Human Rights commissions which produced no results. 8. Lastly, and without detriment of the non-obligation to continue exhausting domestic remedies whenever they are found to be ineffective and in violation of the due process, on March 19, 2001, a direct civil rights protection remedy was filed with the District Judge In Office against the recognition-of-innocence judgment. This remedy is currently being examined. 17. On March 23, 2001, the Commission transmitted to the State the communication submitted by the claimants on March 22, 2001, and granted a term of thirty days for it to submit its respective comments. 18. On April 23, 2001, the State submitted its comments to said communication and thereby expressed the following: as a result of the hearing held before the Commission on October 11, 2000, it became evident that there were internal jurisdiction remedies which had not been exhausted in the instant case. […] The internal jurisdiction remedies whose existence the State has fully demonstrated in its previous replies, have been at all times available to the claimants and it has been proven that they are adequate and efficient, which in no way implies that the results obtained from the application thereof must necessarily be favourable to the claimants. […] This means that in the instant case the hypothesis that make viable the exceptions in the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Court are not updated. The foregoing considerations notwithstanding, the Mexican Government wishes to stress the fact that, as acknowledged by the claimants themselves, on March 19, 2001, they filed with a District judge an amparo appeal against the Distrito Federal Superior Court’s decision that on April 29, 1999, declared non applicability of the recognition-ofinnocence remedy. It is appropriate to point out that a revision remedy would be applicable against the decision of the District judge before the Circuit Courts or before the Supreme Court itself, who shall adopt a final decision on the amparo appeal motion filed.