State from having to respond to charges before an international body for acts imputed to it before it has had the opportunity to remedy them by internal means.”8 31. In this regard, in its first communication of August 11, 2000 the State of Guatemala stated that the failure to exhaust domestic remedies disqualified the Commission from studying the merits of the case. However, in its last communication, dated July 10, 2001 the State claimed that the defendant had been given all procedural remedies for attacking the guilty verdict and although they were exhausted, within a framework of due process, none found that the Sentencing Court had failed to observe judicial guarantees. 32. The Commission has received information from both parties regarding the remedies exhausted by the petitioner. First of all, the first-instance judgment was challenged by means of a special appeal remedy, which was dismissed on May 27, 1998; then, an appeal for annulment was lodged, which was also dismissed on August 17 of that year. An amparosuit lodged with the Constitutional Court was dismissed on February 18, 1999. Later, a review remedy was filed with the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which dismissed it on July 12, 1999. Against that decision a suit for amparo relief was lodged with the Constitutional Court. Finally, following the dismissal of that amparo suit, the defense lodged an appeal for clemency and motion for nonexecution of sentence under the provision of the Guatemalan Constitution whereby the death sentence cannot be carried out while any remedy is still outstanding: the outstanding remedy in this case, said the petitioners, was the international proceeding being pursued before the Commission. 33. From the information provided by the parties as of the drafting of this report, the Commission sees that the petitioner has invoked all the ordinary and special remedies that Guatemalan law offers for challenging the sentence that imposed the death penalty on him and, as result, that the requirement set by the Convention has been satisfied. In addition, the IACHR notes that when the State claimed that there were still domestic remedies that had not been exhausted, it failed to identify them or to demonstrate their effectiveness;9 however, that is now irrelevant since, in its last submission, the State claims that the alleged victim did make use of all the remedies offered by Guatemalan law to defend his rights. 2. Timeliness of the Petition 34. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention rules that for a petition or communication to be admitted by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim of a rights violation was notified of the final judgment. 35. With respect to the remedies that must be pursued and exhausted in order to comply with the requirement contained in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has said that they must be adequate, meaning that the function of those remedies within the domestic legal system “must be suitable to address an infringement of a legal right.”10 36. Thus, the IACHR notes that the petition was received by the Commission on August 14, 1996. According to the information furnished, Mr. Fermín Ramirez’s defense team lodged the 8 See: Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Resolution in the Matter of Viviana Gallardo et al., November 13, 1981, Ser. A No. G 101/81, paragraph 26. 9 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 1, paragraph 88; Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 2, paragraph 87; and Godínez Cruz Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of June 26, 1987, Series C Nº 3, paragraph 90. 10 Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case, Judgment of July 29, 1988, Series C Nº 4, paragraph 64; InterAm.Ct.H.R., Godínez Cruz Case, Judgment of January 20, 1989, Series C Nº 5, paragraph 67; Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Fairén Garbi and Solís Corrales Case, Judgment of March 15, 1989, Series C Nº 6, paragraph 88; Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Caballero Delgado and Santana Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of January 21, 1994, Series C Nº 17, paragraph 63; Inter-Am.Ct.H.R., Exceptions to the Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Arts. 46(1), 46(2)(a) and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90, August 10, 1990, Series A Nº 11, paragraph 36. 6