5 or conviction for the crime of murdering Mr. García Valle demonstrated objectivity in the exercise of their functions. 19. The State argues that this criminal prosecution w as conducted w ith total respect and equal treatment for the parties involved. In particular, the State asserts that the Criminal District Judge of Bluefields gathered the formal accusations made by Mrs. Acosta against those allegedly responsible for murdering her husband and, as a result, directed the criminal action against all of them, despite the difficulties that the actions of Mrs. Acosta herself caused for the investigation, in that she failed to provide information that she had in her possession, w hile making “ unnecessarily complicated an investigation in w hich the judicial apparatus w as concerned w ith doing justice,” presumably due to the prejudice w ith w hich Mrs. Acosta had recourse to the courts. The State also maintains that, in order to identify, process, and convict those responsible for the crime, the authorities adopted their decisions based on factual and legal principles. As a result, the State asserts that those responsible for the murder of Mr. Francisco García Valle w ere convicted and the conviction w as handed dow n follow ing due legal process. In addition, the State emphasizes that the validity of domestic judicial procedures does not depend on w hether or not the parties involved accept their results, but rather on the observance of the rule of due process during the conduct of the case. 20. Secondly, the State rejects the allegations made by the petitioners regarding the alleged limitations encountered in terms of access to justice by the relatives of Mr. García Valle. In this respect, the State maintains that the fact that the final decision to acquit those w ho w ere accused by the alleged victim of being the alleged masterminds and perpetrators of the murder of Mr. García Valle w as not appealed on a timely basis implies tacit consent to that decision w ithout any assumption that access to justice has been denied. Thirdly, the State disagrees w ith the petitioners regarding the causes that led to the referenced crime. It maintains that the murder of Mr. García Valle w as an isolated act committed by “ antisocial individuals w ith criminal instincts” and that it had no connection w ith issues involving indigenous peoples, State policies, or the persecution of human rights defenders. 21. The State rejects the accusations made by the petitioners regarding the alleged corruption affecting the system for administering justice in Nicaragua. It asserts that it is not the policy of the State to foster corruption and that it is impossible to made a generalized assessment of the entire justice system because a party involved in a judicial proceeding does not agree w ith the judgment made by the competent authority. It also maintains that, w ith respect to the instant case, the judges did not act opportunistically, did not seek personal advantage, and did not ensure – as the petitioners maintain – a situation of impunity, but rather acted in a manner consistent w ith their functions. 22. With respect to domestic remedies, the State asserts that the domestic jurisdiction w as not exhausted, despite the assertions made by the petitioners. In this respect, the State maintains that, although the domestic remedies w ere exhausted w ith respect to the conviction of Iván Arguello and Wilber José Ochoa Maradiaga for the crime of murdering Francisco José García Valle, they w ere not exhausted w ith respect to the acquittal of the other individuals w ho w ere prosecuted in the same case. In this regard, it maintains that the exhaustion of domestic remedies should not be confused w ith acceptance of the rulings adopted by the domestic authorities administering justice, w hether based on conformity or the failure to mount a proper challenge. In the instant case, according to the State, the second of these assumptions applies, in that the alleged victim did not appeal the decision ordering the final acquittal of the individuals prosecuted in the context of court case No. 110-02 w ithin the timeframe established by law . 23. Therefore, the State alleges that since the fundamentals of the question have been settled, w hether through exhaustion of the domestic jurisdiction or the consent of the alleged 5