2 instruments to which Peru is a State Party. It also contends that the alleged victim availed himself of all procedural remedies provided to him by the law and, therefore, the fact that Mr. Zegarra Marin has received an adverse judgment cannot be viewed as a denial of justice. In this regard, the State alleges that because of the subsidiary nature of the bodies of the Inter-American human rights protection system, the Commission may not intervene and sit in judgment of facts that are the subject of the complaint, inasmuch as this would amount to acting as a so-called “fourth instance,” or fourth level of review. 6. After examining the position of the parties, the Inter-American Commission concludes that the Peruvian State is responsible for violation of the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to appeal the judgment before a higher judge or court and the right to judicial protection, as enshrined in Articles 8.2, 8.2h and 25.1 of the American Convention, in connection with Article 1.1 of this instrument, to the detriment of Mr. Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín. II. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE IACHR A. Case Proceedings 7. The Commission examined the petition during the 134th regular session and approved Admissibility Report No. 20/09 of March 19, 2009, which was forwarded to the parties on April 1, 2009, placing itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement, as provided for in Article 48.1.f of the American Convention. Additionally, in keeping with Article 38.1 of the Rules of Procedure in effect at the time, the Commission requested the petitioner to submit additional observations on the merits. On April 20, 2009, the Commission received a communication from the petitioner expressing his willingness to reach a friendly settlement in the matter. On May 5, 2009, the IACHR forwarded this communication to the State and reiterated it had placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to reaching a friendly settlement in the matter. The State did not reply to the aforementioned offer. 8. On May 8, 2009, the IACHR received additional observations on the merits from the petitioner, which were forwarded to the State in a communication of May 22, 2009, granting it a twomonth period to reply. The State filed a motion with the Commission to grant it an extension to submit its reply, which was denied by the IACHR on June 5, 2009, on the grounds that the original time period that was set for its reply would lapse on July 22, 2009. 9. The State submitted its additional observations on the merits in a communication dated July 22, 2009, which were forwarded to the petitioner on August 24, 2009, for him to submit any comments that he deemed appropriate within a period of one month. The petitioner submitted comments on September 21 and 29, 2009, which were forwarded to the State on September 30 and October 27, 2009, respectively, and it was given a one-month period to respond. The State submitted observations in communications dated October 30 and November 12, 2009, which were forwarded to the petitioner on January 4, 2010. 10. The Commission received two communications from the State on January 11 and 13, 2011, which were forwarded to the petitioner on March 4, 2011. The petitioner submitted information in a communication of March 24, 2011, which was forwarded to the State for its reference on June 6, 2011. Then, on September 14, 2011, the Commission received another communication from the petitioner and acknowledged receipt thereof on May 24, 2012. In a communication received on December 2011 the petitioner expressed his interest in the IACHR holding a hearing during the 144th