attorney, and the final decision cannot be impugned on the grounds of a possible appeal that was never filed within the legal time limits. 32. With respect to the petitioners' allegation that it was impossible to file an appeal for financial reasons and the failure of the Attorney General's office to afford proper representation for the relatives of the victim, the State maintains that the Attorney General's office has various facilities for helping victims, including the Public Defender's Office and the College of Lawyers of the State of Aragua, and that these services are free. 33. According to the State, the petitioners' arguments that justice was denied because of the plaintiff's economic and social condition are too vague, because they do not make direct reference to the proceedings against the police officers accused of murdering the victim. 34. With respect to the right to life, the State noted that article 65.1 of the Penal Code excuses from liability a person who acts in fulfillment of a duty or the exercise of a right, authority, office or position, as occurred in this case. It pointed to the declaration of two citizens who testified that the victim exchanged gunfire with police. 35. The State argued further that, to be exonerated, an act must not only represent the legitimate exercise of authority, but must also have been committed in legitimate defense and as the only means of subduing the armed attacker to prevent further resistance and aggression against the police. The State argues that those elements apply to the case at hand, and that it was therefore appropriate to exempt the officers of responsibility and dismiss the charges against them.3 The State maintains that the police officers acted in the exercise of their duty and in a "state of necessity" to repel an attack, which means that they cannot be punished for their conduct and consequently neither the Venezuelan State nor the Attorney General's office bears any responsibility, since the dismissal of charges resulted from circumstances related to the status of the accused as police officers. 36. With respect to the alleged violation of judicial guarantees, the State maintains that at all times the courts listened to the petitioners' complaints, revoking the decisions they deemed unfair and acting of their own accord to correct improper legal proceedings. The State added that in the course of the case the police kept records of every action taken in the initial investigation, such as visual inspections, the taking of testimony from witnesses, medical and forensic examinations, and ballistic tests. 37. The State maintains that the petitioners have “lost sight of the actual events, which involved an exchange of gunfire between the police squad and the victim, during which the bullets could have lodged in any part of the body and from any direction.” 38. Finally, the State insisted that because the victim's father took it upon himself to make the accusations in the process, this meant that he subrogated to himself the attributes of the Attorney General's office and therefore had the duty to exercise all the prerogatives available to him by law during the proceedings: otherwise, he must be deemed to have acquiesced in the shortcomings he alleges. IV. A. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY Jurisdiction of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 39. The petitioners are entitled by article 44 of the American Convention to present petitions on behalf of the alleged victims. For its part, Venezuela has been a state party to the American The State noted that, pursuant to article 314, 315 and 316 of the then-valid Code of Criminal Indictment, the dismissal could only be ordered by the judge hearing the case, and had the force of a judgment. 3 5