social discrimination are not attributable or imputable to any agent of the State. It asserts that “the guilty parties, according to statements made by the petitioner, would be the Red Cross or its officials.” It asserts that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is a private society created under the Swiss Civil Code, its functions are based on the Geneva Conventions, and both the ICRC and the Ecuadorian Red Cross enjoy “international legal status” or “a separate status” so that the Ecuadorian State is outside “any responsibility for the commission of this alleged violation of human rights.”10 15. In addition, the State alleges that the petition is inadmissible due to the failure to comply with the requirement regarding prior exhaustion of domestic resources as established in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention. It alleges that TGGL and her family did not use the appropriate and effective judicial remedies provided under Ecuadorian law. Specifically, it states that “…they allowed the statute of limitations on the criminal action to expire;” they did not seek recusal of the judges who delayed the handling or trying of the case; they did not attempt action for damages and injury against those judges; they did not file suit for monetary compensation for moral damages; and did not avail themselves of the cassation appeal in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code. 16. With respect to the criminal proceeding in which the relatives of TGGL were denied a specific indictment because the action was untimely, the State believes that her relatives demonstrated “negligence and little interest in moving forward with the case and obtaining the conviction of the alleged perpetrators.”11 It emphasizes that the mother of TGGL did not have competent legal counsel in her complaint before the First Specialized Chamber for Civil, Commercial, and Leasing and Residual Matters of the Superior Court of Justice of Cuenca, which declared void everything done starting with the order that accepted the complaint for processing. The State indicates that the petitioner never submitted a cassation appeal to challenge this decision or sought to file another civil action. The State alleges that in view of their disagreement with the court decisions, the petitioners seek to use the Commission as a body for review of the substantive aspects of legitimately concluded judicial proceedings and the Commission would thus constitute a fourth instance. Finally, the State alleges that the petitioners are not compliant because they fail to indicate whether their complaint is being heard or pending a decision in another international organization. 17. In summary, the State alleges that the complaint does not meet the requirements established in Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention and asks the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 18. In principle, the petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to file petitions with the Commission. The petition indicates as alleged victim an individual person with respect to whom the Ecuadorian State agreed to respect and guarantee rights enshrined in the American Convention. Ecuador has been a party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it submitted its ratifying instrument. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 19. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that would have occurred within the territory of Ecuador, a State Party to that convention. The Commission is competent ratione 10 Official letter 06630 of the Office of the Attorney General dated March 24, 2009, submitted by means of Note No. 4-2-70/2009 of March 27, 2009. 11 The State refers to Article 33 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states that “the complainant does not incur the obligation binding him to the judicial proceeding, nor does he incur any liability, except in those cases where the Judge declares the complaint to be malicious or frivolous.” Official letter 05193 from the Office of the Attorney General dated December 4, 2008, submitted by means of Note No. 4-2-347/2008 of December 9, 2008. 4