declare a petition admissible, and the one required to establish whether a violation, imputable to the State, has been committed.11 55. The Inter-American Commission’s jurisprudence clear establishes that it is not competent to review judgments handed down by national courts that act within their jurisdiction and apply the appropriate judicial guarantees. The IACHR cannot assume the position of an appeals court to examine alleged errors in fact or in law that may have been committed by domestic courts acting within their sphere of competence. However, within the limits of its mandate to guarantee the observance of the rights provided for by the Convention, the Inter-American Commission is competent to declare a petition admissible and decide on its grounds when it refers to a national judgment handed down absent due process, or if a violation of any other right guaranteed by the American Convention is put forward.12 56. Specifically regarding the proceedings followed against Messrs. and Mme. Juan Patricio Marileo Sanabria, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñan and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican, the Commission takes note that in the instant case the complainants contend that there has been a violation of Article 24, in connection with Article 1(1), of the American Convention. The petitioners also complain that in the instant case there has been a violation of Article 8(2) of the American Convention, on the right to a fair trial, in the degree to which they did not dispose of adequate means to prepare their defense, as provided for by paragraphs c and f of said article. 57. Based on the arguments and documentation submitted by the parties, as well as on interAmerican jurisprudence, it is the opinion of the Commission that there is no indication of a lack of grounds for the petition, or that it is out of order. Although some of the allegations of the petitioners do not tend to establish human rights violations (e.g. the claim stating that the court, in handing down its decision, had copied paragraphs of another judgment), the IACHR will examine said allegations in its decision on the merits. It will do so within the context of the argument referring to a special criminal law regime applied to the alleged victims and the definition of the unlawful conduct, or the criminal type used, that couldprima facie characterize a violation of human rights guaranteed by Articles 8 and 9, in connection with Article 1(1), of the American Convention, with prejudice to Juan Patricio Marileo Saravia, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñan and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican. In addition, given the claims on the part of the petitioners regarding the application of a criminal law regime more severe than common criminal law, because of their ethnic origin, the IACHR considers that the facts object of the complaint could characterize a violation of Article 24 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1(1) of that international instrument.13 58. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Inter-American Commission that the requirements established by Article 47(b) and (c) of the American Convention have been met. V. CONCLUSION 59. The IACHR concludes that it is competent to take cognizance of the instant case and that the petition meets the requirements of admissibility, pursuant to Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and to Articles 30, 37 and other related articles of its Rules of Procedure. THE INTER-AMERICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS DECIDES: 11 See IACHR, Report N° 31/03, Case 12.195, Mario Alberto Jara Oñate et al., Chile, March 7, 2003, paragraph 41. See IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, paragraph 43. 12 See IACHR, Report N° 1/03, Case 12.221, Jorge Omar Gutiérrez, Argentina, February 20, 2003, paragraph 46, citing Report N° 39/96, Case 11.673, Marzioni, Argentina, October 15 1996, paragraphs 50-51. See IACHR, Report N° 4/04, Petition 12.324, Rubén Luis Godoy, Argentina, February 24, 2004, paragraph 43. 13 IACHR, Report N° 89/06, Petition 619-03, Admissibility, Aniceto Norin Catriman and Pascual Pichún Paillalao, Chile, October 21, 2006, paragraph 65. 9