4 her husband. They report that she w as finally acquitted on May 13, 2002. They state that the accusation against her w as meant to frighten her and deter her from seeking an impartial investigation into the murder of her husband. 13. They state that, based on the irregular actions taken by various judicial authorities, namely, the Criminal District Judge in Bluefields, the District Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Bluefields and the Judges of the Court of Appeals of Bluefields, six complaints had been filed w ith the Disciplinary Regime Committee of the Supreme Court of Justice, all w ithout any response. They emphasize that in response to this situation, the Office of the Prosecutor for the Defense of Human Rights, in a ruling dated October 6, 2003, declared that Mrs. Acosta’ s right of access to timely justice had been violated and recommended that the President of the Supreme Court of Justice urge the judges on the Disciplinary Regime Committee to settle the complaints submitted. They assert that, having received no response, the Office of the Prosecutor publicly censured the actions of the judiciary and, in a ruling dated June 10, 2004, established that the conduct of the criminal trial for the murder of Mr. García Valle violated the human rights of Mrs. Acosta. 14. They also point out that due to the accusations that Mrs. Acosta made against the alleged masterminds of the crime against her husband, civil and criminal actions w ere filed against her6 and all of them w ere settled in Mrs. Acosta’ s favor in late 2004. 7 In addition, they note that during the criminal investigation process there w ere various instances of interference in her private life due to certain procedures aut horized by the judge in the case. 15. Regarding the deadline for submitting the complaint, the petitioners allege that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice on December 19, 2006 had exhausted the domestic remedies, since Mrs. Acosta w as notified of the decision on December 22, 2006, so that the filing of the petition w as in accordance w ith the deadline under the Convention. They also maintain that the complaint is not pending settlement in any other international proceeding. 16. Accordingly, the petitioners argue that the State of Nicaragua violated the follow ing articles of the American Convention: 4, 8, and 25 to the detriment of Francisco García Valle; 5, 8, 11, and 25 to the detriment of María Luisa Acosta Castellón; and 5, 8, and 25 to the detriment of Ana María Vergara Acosta, Álvaro Arístides Vergara Acosta, Leonor del Carmen Valle de García, and Rodolfo García Solari, all as they relate to Article 1.1 thereof. B. The State 17. The State is in substantial agreement w ith the petitioners’ report w ith respect to the date, time, and manner in w hich the murder of Mr. García Valle occurred. The information it provides also agrees w ith respect to the existence and content of the judicial decisions adopted in the context of the criminal process conducted as a result of the murder. How ever, the State maintains that the alleged violations of rights under the Convention cannot be deduced from the facts reported. 18. First, the State points out that the actions taken by the authorities involved in investigating the facts reported w ere consistent w ith their functions. It asserts that w hen Nicaraguan authorities learned of the murder, they initiated investigative proceedings. It adds that the court officials in charge of the criminal prosecution and w ho adopted the decision s on acquittal 6 Regarding the criminal accusations, the petitioners indicate that in June 2002 Mrs. Acosta w as accused of the crimes of slander and libel before the Local Criminal Court of Bluefields. In addition, on October 2, 2002 a complaint w as filed against her for the crimes of perjury and false accusation w ith the Civil and Criminal Judge of Bluefields. 7 Specifically, the petitioners state that on August 23, 2004 the criminal process against Mrs. Acosta for perjury and false accusation w as declared to have lapsed. 4