10. In turn, the State claims that it fully accepts its obligations concerning the respect and the safeguard of human rights, and it asserts that since 2009, it has developed strategies to overcome poverty and social inequality. It claims that the reform of the healthcare system in 2010 has had an impact in terms of sexual and reproductive health, as it has enabled the access to health for girls, adolescents and women. It also indicates that it has adopted specific legislation concerning gender equity and equality, designed public policies to enforce the legal norms concerning gender equality, and trained public defenders on women’s rights in order to ensure the rights of the women prosecuted for, or convicted of, offenses connected with “the life of the human being in prenatal development.” In particular, regarding the denounced facts, it gives a detailed account of the instances when Manuela received medical treatment at different institutions of the Public Health System, and it claims that on September 9, 2009, the Eastern Regional Criminological Council found appropriate to have Manuela transferred from the Pre-trial Detention Center and Prison of San Miguel to the Women’s Rehabilitation Center of Ilopango in order to facilitate her medical treatment. 11. The State gives an account of a series of actions in the framework of the proceedings filed against Manuela. It indicates that the Chief Justice of the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera, who heard the case, asserted that Manuela’s rights and legal safeguards were respected in every stage of the proceedings. There is a report signed by said judge, who claims that Manuela’s rights and legal safeguards were read out; that she was arrested “in flagrante delicto” thanks to the treating physician’s report filed the previous day and to the search of the detainee’s home on a warrant; and that a public defender was assigned to her on the same day of her detention. According to said report, on March 2, 2008, during the administrative detention, the Prosecutor’s Office presented a claim whereby the accused was remanded in custody –that is to say, three days after her detention–, and that on that same day the Justice of the Peace of Villa Cacaopera appeared at the Hospital to notify Manuela of the order that the Prosecutor’s Office had issued against her; the Justice of the Peace read her rights and the charges, and established that her arrest would last for the legally prescribed term of the investigation. Moreover, the report states that given that Manuela’s legal representative was not present at the time of her detention, she was not questioned on the facts; and that, at the hearings, Manuela was always accompanied by her counsel. As to the pre-trial custody, the report states that it was upheld by the Justice of the Peace of Cacaopera and the Second Judge of the Court of First Instance inasmuch as they considered that there was sufficient evidence to logically conclude that the accused was responsible for murder. In the report, it is also claimed that the prosecutors collected evidence throughout the pre-trial proceedings, a time during which the public defender was able to prepare the defense and to reach Manuela; and that the defender had enough time to prepare her defense. According to the report, Manuela’s rights were not violated nor were there acts of negligence or ill-will on the part of her public defender; and the accused, in the exercise of her right to material defense, presented testimonial evidence. It is claimed that her right to challenge a judgment was not violated inasmuch as when the judgment was read out, said decision was made available to the defense in case it wished to file the corresponding remedies; however, this right was not exercised, hence the judgment became final. VI. EXHAUSTION OF DOMESTIC REMEDIES AND TIMELINESS OF THE PETITION 12. The petitioners assert that the exceptions set forth in Article 46.2(a) and (b) of the American Convention and in Article 31.2(a) and (b) of the Commission’s Rules apply as a result of the abovementioned arguments. In turn, the State indicates that the alleged victim did not resort to the remedies available against the criminal judgment, which is why it became final. After considering the fact that in the criminal proceedings initiated against Manuela on July 31, 2008, there was a public hearing in which the Trial Court of San Francisco Gotera convicted Manuela to thirty years of imprisonment, and the fact that despite the judgment having been read out on August 11, 2008, Manuela’s public defender never filed a remedy against it within the legally established terms or allegedly ever informed Manuela of this possibility, the Commission concludes that the exception to the prior exhaustion of domestic remedies set forth in Article 46.2(b) of the American Convention applies in this case. Moreover, in the merits stage, the IACHR will analyze the arguments concerning the lack of an ordinary remedy to challenge a first instance judgment at the time when the facts took place. It is worth mentioning that the petition to the IACHR was received on March 21, 2012, that the alleged facts matter of this complaint started on February 27, 2008, and that certain effects continue to the present date. As a result, in view of the context and given the characteristics of the matter, the Commission finds that the petition was filed in a reasonable time and that the admissibility requirement of timeliness is met. 5