B. Position of the State 16. In this admissibility stage, the State says that it will not deal in depth with the petitioner’s obligations. However, it states that when the alleged victims were questioned about the subversive material found in their car, they refused to give explanations and offered money to the federal agents if they would let them continue their trip. 17. Mexico argues that the petition submitted by the petitioner should be declared inadmissible. In the first place, it maintains that the complaint received by the IACHR on February 23, 2007 does not constitute a petition as defined in the American Convention, because in its original communication the petitioner reserved “the right to request that it be admitted at a later time.” According to the State, the complaint is not a petition, but a mere prelude to a possible petition, so that there was no petition on which the IACHR could rule on admissibility. 18. In the second place, the State argues that there is no issue for the case, because the alleged victims were released on October 16, 2008, by the Second Central Court of the Seventh Circuit in Veracruz. The State says that the alleged victims found favorable resolution for their claims in domestic courts, so there is no issue. 19. If the IACHR should decide to analyze the case’s admissibility—despite the State’s contention that there is no petition on which to rule—it argues that domestic remedies have not been exhausted. According to the State, the ultimate resolution applicable to the alleged victims was the appellate ruling issued by the Second Central Court of the Seventh Circuit on October 16, 2008. It states that said decision absolved the defendants of the offense of organized crime, confirmed the penalty for bribery, and ordered their immediate release. Mexico says that if Messrs. Tzompaxtle Tecpile and Mr. Robles López had considered that this resolution violated their human rights, the appropriate remedy to protect their rights would have been an amparo appeal. However, the State says they did not file any such appeal of the decision, so they haven’t exhausted domestic remedies. 20. Finally, the State argues that a petition was not presented within the period established by Article 46 of the American Convention. It says that the parties were notified of the final decision in this case on October 16, 2008, and two and a half years later—when the State submitted its observations on June 2, 2011— the petitioner had not presented any amparo appeal of the decision. Moreover, it argues that if the petitioner decided to request the admissibility of this case at that time, i.e., when the State presented its observations, the request would be late and should be rejected because it would be after the six months period established in the American Convention. IV. A. ANALYSIS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND COMPETENCE Existence of a petition 21. The Commission notes that in the petitioner’s initial communication presented on February 23, 2007, it reserved the right “to request that it be admitted at a later time.” Based on that statement, the State argues that this matter is not a petition as defined in the Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission, and that the petitioner did not subsequently request that it be admitted. 22. On this matter, the IACHR observes that in the same note of February 23, 2007, the petitioner said that it informed the Commission about the “following case, because it considers that it violates the American Convention on Human Rights” and said “[…] we respectfully request that the IACHR: […] issue an opinion that the Mexican State violated articles of the American Convention on Human Rights, Articles 7(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6), Article 8(1)(2)(b)(c), and Articles 15 and 25.” On November 14, 2008, the petitioner submitted additional information including a note in which it said it was “hoping that the Inter-American