3 and 8(3); 10; 11(1), 11(2) and 11(3); 21(1), 21(2) and 21(3); and 25(1), 25(2)(a), 25(2)(b) and 25(2)(c) of the American Convention. 7. The Commission opened the case on May 7, 1999, forwarded the pertinent sections of the complaint to the State, and requested its comments, pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Commission that were in force at the time. It specifically asked the State, in accordance with Article 37 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, with the aim of processing said communication as appropriate, to provide –together with information on the facts- any relevant factors to assess whether in that case the domestic remedies had or had not been exhausted. 8. On August 12, 1999, the State answered the request for information, stating that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, as the criminal proceeding was still pending, and it asserted that there were effective domestic remedies, such as an appeal to the court of cassation, which the petitioner could file against the judgment issued by the respective criminal court, and a motion for review, which could be requested at any moment once a writ of execution of the judgment had been issued, if he were found guilty in that judgment. The State pointed out that while there were irregularities in the processing of the first instance of the criminal trial, they had been corrected, as the petitioner was able to resort to available remedies to recuse the judges. On September 27, 1999 the State submitted additional information to the Commission regarding the reasons for Mr. Tibi’s detention and the evidence that it was based on, regarding non-liability of the police in this matter, and regarding non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, based on the fact that there was still no definitive court ruling, that is, a non-appeable judgment. On October 8, 1999, the Commission forwarded the information supplied by the State to the petitioner, and requested his comments on it. 9. On December 9, 1999 the petitioner, in response to a query by the Commission, argued that he had no available remedies to exhaust. He added that he had already been found innocent and that, furthermore, only the inter-American system could offer an “impartial and apolitical” examination of his situation. Finally, he added that, despite having appointed an attorney in Ecuador to seek the return of his property, it had not been returned to him. 10. On October 5, 2000, during its 108th Regular Session, the Commission adopted Report No. 90/00, in which it found the case admissible under No. 12.124, and it decided to consider the merits. Specifically, in said Report the Commission pointed out that: [t]he argument of the State regarding the existence of instances yet to be exhausted refers to a drug trafficking case in which the proceeding against the petitioner was provisionally dismissed on September 3, 1997. However, this case has been under consideration since 1995, for which reason the Commission concluded that there [wa]s unjustified delay, applying the exception set forth in Article 46(2)(c) [of the Convention]. The Commission noted that the State does not specify which instances have already been exhausted, nor in which instance the case is currently ongoing. 11. Said report mentioned, regarding return of the belongings “seized” when the petitioner was detained, that the State had not specified the procedures that he should follow to obtain their return, but rather it asserted that he had never requested their return after his release. The Commission mentioned that on September 23 or 29, 1998, in the judgment issued by the Second Criminal Judge of the Guayas, Alternate Judge for the Eighteenth Criminal Court of the Guayas, an order was issued for the return of Mr. Tibi’s belongings, “prior confirmation by the