B. The State 9. The State maintains that the persons responsible for the assassination of Pedro Huilca Tecse were detained and convicted and that the Special Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Military Justice confirmed the guilty verdict in June 1993. The State also clarifies that the Peruvian legal system includes motions to reopen a case, which cannot be filed by the plaintiff; it does however allow for the possibility of that party going before the Supreme Court or the Office of the Attorney General (Ministerio Público) so that either body may bring charges. The petitioner did not use these remedies and procedures within the domestic legal system and therefore had not exhausted the domestic remedies available. Finally, the State says that the deadline of six months for presenting claims had lapsed, as provided for in article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention, "considering the nature of the offense and the date on which it occurred, as well as the date of the corresponding criminal proceedings." In the note dated April 23, 1998, it adds arguments to the effect that the petitioner is trying, through subjective statements with political content, to have the Commission decide on the accusation. In addition, the State feels the petitioner's interpretation of the date on which the aforementioned six-month period would start is erroneous and maintains that it starts from the time of notification of the final judgment. The State closes by requesting that the petition be found inadmissible. V. ADMISSIBILITY A. Timing 10. The Commission is competent to examine this complaint, since it deals with an alleged violation of article 4.1 of the American Convention. Peru deposited the instrument of ratification of the aforementioned Convention on January 21, 1981. B. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 11. The petition was presented on time, as established in article 46(2)(a), since the new information that in the end may lead to a review of the guilty verdict against members of the Shining Path was first made known on April 14, 1997 by General Rodolfo Robles Espinoza, and the petition was presented on June 4, 1997, i.e. within two months of the dissemination of these new means of proof. It therefore did not exceed that term of six months set in the Convention from when the injured party was notified of the final decision. This is taken as a parameter for judging whether or not the time that transpired was reasonable given the circumstances. This evidence that was not known or judged in the aforementioned judgment is factual grounds that in "this specific case" reasonably entitle the petitioner to lodge a complaint with the Commission in a timely manner, since Peruvian law does not set forth any domestic provisions establishing due process for victims' relatives for the purpose of filing a motion for reconsideration. That reconsideration deals specifically with a factual aspect linked to the murder of Huilca Tecse that was not heard during the proceedings and that will provide new proof regarding an event that was unknown up until then, aimed at showing that other persons were responsible for the violation of the right to life. 12. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, for a case to be admissible, it is required "that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." The purpose of this requirement is to guarantee that the State in question can resolve disputes within its own legal context. The State's position is that this case is inadmissible because the petitioners did not pursue or use the remedies and procedures in the domestic legal system. In other words, when the decision was made final by the highest body, the plaintiff, who is not able to file a motion for reconsideration, could have gone before the Supreme Court to suggest that that action be taken or the Public Ministry for it to file a criminal accusation. In opposition to the State's position, the petitioner maintains that the legal system does not authorize the petitioner to file a motion to reopen the case and that it seeks to see the true persons responsible investigated and convicted. Thus, once that guilty verdict is obtained, the persons wrongly convicted would be entitled to request a reconsideration of the judgment. The petitioner closes with the argument that the State and the judicial system did not guarantee 3