present his brother, Rodolfo, as a witness. 20 On August 13, 2003, the Court declared the motion inadmissible, finding that the convicted man’s claim that he had been denied the possibility of making a statement was false and, therefore, no constitutional guarantee had been infringed.21 44. On September 22, 2003, José Agapito Ruano Torres filed another motion to review with the Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador in which he advanced the same arguments and again offered the testimony of his brother, Rodolfo. On September 29, 2003, the Court decided not to admit the new motion on the basis that it was a reiteration of the previous one. 22 45. With respect to the State’s argument that domestic remedies have not been exhausted because an action for amparo has not been presented, the Commission notes that the State itself holds that said remedy is not appropriate to challenge a final judgment. 46. Based on the foregoing, the Commission finds that the matters of the allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment allegedly committed to the detriment of José Agapito Ruano Torres at the time of his arrest, as well as those to do with his pre-trial detention and his allegations of violations of the rights to a fair trial and judicial protection, were examined in his criminal trial. Accordingly, the disposal of the motions for review presented exhausted the domestic jurisdiction in respect of each of said claims. Furthermore, those motions were also the subject of the habeas corpus action that was lodged. 47. Based on the foregoing, the Commission concludes that the instant petition meets the requirements set forth at Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. 2. Filing period 48. Under the terms of Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, for a petition to be admitted it must have been lodged within a period of six months following the date on which the complainant was notified of the final judgment at the national level. The six-month rule guarantees certainty and legal stability once a decision has been made. 49. The Commission found that in the instant case, the disposal of the motions for review presented exhausted the domestic jurisdiction. The petition was presented to the Commission on December 12, 2003, and, therefore, any of the three appeal decisions is within the filing period provided at Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention, on which basis the IACHR deems this requirement met. 3. Duplication of international proceedings and res judicata 50. Article 46(1)(c) provides that admission of a petition is subject to the requirement that the subject “is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement,” and Article 47(d) of the Convention stipulates that the Commission shall not admit a petition which “is substantially the same as one previously studied by” it “or by another international organization.” In the present case, the parties have not claimed and the proceedings do not indicate the existence of either of these circumstances of inadmissibility. 4. Colorable claim 51. As regards the analysis of admissibility, the Commission considers that it is not appropriate for it at this stage of the proceedings to determine whether or not the alleged violations of the right to a fair trial and to be free from the application of ex post facto laws did indeed occur. show that the act did not exist, that the accused did not commit it, or that the act committed is not punishable; and, 6) When a more favorable criminal law is applicable 20 The procedural standard in force provided that “Trial judges shall also examine motions for review on the rulings that they deliver”. See Code of Criminal Procedure of El Salvador, Article 53. 21 The Court found that it had not been shown that the provisions contained in Article 431(4) had been met. See Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, August 3, 2003 22 See Second Trial Court in and for San Salvador, September 29, 2003 9