6 the time and the Political Constitution of Peru, it was proven that the petitioner was criminally responsible for the crimes. 25. In this regard, the State asserts that it was established as an irrefutable fact in the proceeding against the alleged victim that Mr. Zegarra Marín was fully aware of the irregularities that were taking place in the Office of Migration of Tumbes and of the illegal passport trafficking. It specifically claims that Mr. Agustín Zegarra Marín had the opportunity to appoint defense counsel, introduce evidence, object to or challenge any decisions that he deemed improper and notes that he filed a motion to set aside the conviction of 1996, though it was upheld by the Supreme Court on December 17, 1997. The State also notes that the petitioner filed a motion for review of conviction, which was denied on August 24, 1999 and, lastly, he filed a criminal complaint against the judges of the Fifth Chamber for Criminal Matters of the Superior Court of Justice for the crimes of procedural fraud, malfeasance in office and overall dishonesty to the detriment of the State, and his claim was found groundless. 26. Consequently, the State alleges that the circumstances prompting legal proceedings to be instituted against PNP Commander Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín and prompting his imprisonment and subsequent release, unfolded under a framework of judicial proceedings, which were reviewed on appeal by the highest level of the judiciary and, therefore, the means to challenge any rulings deemed by the petitioner to be contrary to his interests were available to him under the domestic legal system. 27. The State notes that Article 159 of the Political Constitution of Peru sets forth the powers of the Office of the Public Prosecutor, which include “instituting legal proceedings ex officio, or at the request of a party, to defend legality and public interests protected by law.” It also asserted that these powers include “to safeguard the independence of the bodies of the judiciary and proper administration of justice” and “to conduct investigations into criminal offenses from the preliminary stage. For this purpose, the National Police is obligated to fulfill the mandates of the Office of the Public Prosecutor within the scope of its duty.” 28. In light of the foregoing, the State alleges that the fact that the petitioner had been included as a target in the investigation, even though he had not been named in the police report, does not amount to a violation of his rights, since investigation reports produced by the National Police are merely for reference and do not constitute conclusive evidence against the subjects of the investigation. 29. The State also argues that the fact that the petitioner was granted conditional release on bail during the proceeding cannot be considered proof of his innocence, inasmuch as this release order was issued because none of the requirements under Article 135 of the Criminal Procedural Code were met for holding him in custody, and not as a direct consequence of his innocence. 30. Lastly, the State contends that given the subsidiary nature of the bodies of the InterAmerican human rights protection system, the Commission may not engage in an examination of the facts, which are the subject of the domestic legal proceeding, because this would amount to acting as a so-called “fourth instance.” 31. The Commission notes that the State argued on many occasions during the merits stage about the petitioner’s claims of alleged violations of other rights enshrined in the American Convention, which were found inadmissible by this Commission in Admissibility Report No. 20/09 and, accordingly, these rights shall not be addressed in this report.