28. Furthermore, in response to the argument of the petitioner regarding the alleged flaws with which the public defenders that represented him acted, the State holds “although the public defenders invoked no further remedies, that was because they had lodged two motions for annulment… and this was due, not to negligence, but to the fact that in the opinion of the defense, based on a responsible and painstaking examination, the foregoing was not in order because the parties must comply with the requirements for invoking a judicial remedy set forth by the law and governed by the Procedural Code and the case-law of the courts [.]” 29. The State also says that there are a number of legal actions still open to the petitioner given that through an action for amparo he could seek relief for the rights he believes violated, such as the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, "that is, amparo may be invoked for violation of rights set forth in the Convention but not to seek relief against the final judgment in a criminal matter since it would be out of order in that respect, as stipulated in Article 13 of the Code of Constitutional Procedure [.]” 30. Because the petitioner’s last motion to review was filed after proceedings before the IACHR begun, and said motion is still pending a resolution, the State argued that an objection to the previous exhaustion of domestic remedies was applicable. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 31. The petitioner has standing under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The alleged victim is a person on whose behalf El Salvador undertook to observe and ensure the rights recognized in the Convention. Accordingly, the IACHR is competent ratione personae to take up this petition. 32. The Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition inasmuch as it alleges violation of rights protected by the American Convention which are said to have taken place within the territory of El Salvador, a state party to said treaty. 33. The IACHR is competent ratione temporis because the obligation to observe and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already binding upon the State at the time the events alleged in the petition are said to have occurred, given that El Salvador deposited its instrument of ratification in the appropriate manner on June 23, 1978. Finally, the Commission has ratione materiae competence because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected in the American Convention. B. Other admissibility requirements for the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 34. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that admission of petitions lodged with the Inter-American Commission in keeping with Article 44 of the Convention shall be subject to the requirement that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This rule is designed to allow national authorities to examine alleged violations of protected rights and, as appropriate, to resolve them before they are taken up in an international proceeding. 35. In the instant case, the State argues that the alleged victim chose not to make use of the various domestic remedies available to him and that the possibility was left pending of filing for a writ of amparo to seek relief for his allegedly abridged rights. In particular, it says that although the alleged victim claimed a series of supposed violations in the course of the proceeding, he did not invoke domestic remedies but, rather “all he did was complain and denounce the judges and magistrates, without making use of the mechanisms available to him within that proceeding.” The State also mentions that in addition to a motion for annulment, 6