4 B. Position of the State 20. In response to the petitioners’ complaint, the State claims that it is inadmissible, since it does not state facts that establish a violation of the Convention, since the facts set forth in the petition were the subject of proceedings conducted diligently in the police criminal courts, and the IACHR is not a court of fourth instance. 21. It alleges that criminal proceedings were conducted by the Second Police Judge of the Fourth District strictly according to normal procedures, in compliance with the applicable procedural rules under Ecuadorian law. It argues that evidence of this is that the Second Chamber of the District Court of the National Police “upheld the ordinary court judgment of conviction to 8 years of prison” against two police agents for the homicide of the alleged victim. It further alleges that subsequently, the convicted parties filed an appeal for review with the National Police Court of Justice, which was denied on January 22, 2003, upholding the conviction of the police agents. 22. It contends that although a violation of the right to life was committed in this case, the State undertook a serious and effective investigation within a reasonable period of time that “resulted in the criminal punishment of the elements in the National Police at fault, as they were found guilty of the simple homicide of Mr. Aguas Acosta.” The State maintains that the proceedings occurred within the limits of a reasonable period of time as determined by the Court and the Commission, and so it was not in violation of Article 8 of the American Convention. 23. The State further maintains that administrative sanctions were applied to the convicted parties. It indicates that the fact of being in a “transitional situation” means that the convicted parties are in the stage prior to their dismissal from the Police Force. Later the State indicated that “the persons involved were punished administratively by the National Police, since they were dismissed.” It further argues that “it has made every effort to determine the whereabouts of the implicated parties” and that it reserves the possibility of submitting additional information on the action taken by Ecuador to capture the responsible parties. 24. It alleges that the petitioners never expressed their discontent or availed themselves of legal remedies against the judgment of the police courts. As regards the right to defense, the State claims that the petitioners had all the remedies offered under Ecuadorian law for such violations available to them. In fact, the Ecuadorian courts accepted all of the motions filed by the parties, and processed the many challenges and objections filed by the victim’s wife. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione materiae, ratione personae, ratione temporis y ratione loci 25. In principle, petitioners are authorized to lodge petitions with the Commission under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition indicates that the alleged victims are individuals in respect of whom the Ecuadorian State pledged to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention. With regard to the State, the Commission points out that Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 8, 1977, and that it has been a party to the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture since November 9 1999, the dates on which it deposited its instruments of ratification. Consequently, the Commission has personal jurisdiction to examine the petition. It also has territorial jurisdiction to examine the petition, since it contains allegations of the violation of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the territory of Ecuador, a state party to that instrument.