12. The Petitioner also alleges that he was robbed of his belongings ( his car, along with money and valuable items inside the car) which he still claims.2 The value of the assets for which the Petitioner is suing amounts to FRF 1,000,000. B. Position of the State 13. The State alleges that the Petitioner did not exhaust the remedies of the domestic jurisdiction, and that, consequently, the Commission should declare his petition inadmissible. It alleges that the courts are still to decide the action. It admits the existence of procedural irregularities in the proceedings in the trial court, but it alleges that those irregularities have been remedied, since the Petitioner could invoke remedies available to him to recuse the judges. Pursuant to that provision, he filed a complaint with the Complaints and Claims Commission of the Supreme Court of Justice, since the judge hearing the action had not replied to the Petitioner’s appeal for dismissal. This judge was admonished by the Supreme Court for delaying the proceedings for this type of trial. The use of such a measure by the Petitioner, alleges the State, made it possible for trial to be conducted under appropriate conditions. 14. The State also alleges that the process was not concluded and that the decision of the tribunals, whether favorable or not, would be a suitable way to resolve the situation of the Petitioner. It also alleges that it prove the existence of effective domestic remedies to resolve the legal situation of the Petitioner. These measures are the appeal to quash a decision of a lower court, which the Petitioner might file against the judgment issued by the corresponding criminal court. That measure is effective if the Supreme Court of Justice had made errors of law, in annulling the judgment and issuing a new according to law. The State also alleges that another available remedy is that of review, which may be filed at any time after the judgment is executed if it was a conviction. 15. As to returning the belongings taken from the Petitioner at the time of the arrest, the State alleges that the law requires that they be requested and that they were never claimed after the Petitioner was released. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Ratione materiae, ratione personae, temporiscompetence of the Commission ratione loci, and ratione 16. The Commission has ratione materiae, ratione personae pasiva, ratione loci, and ratione temporis competence to hear this case, because the complaints of violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 21, and 25 of the Convention against the Petitioner, a French citizen, are attributed to the Ecuadorian State, a State Party to the Treaty, and were allegedly committed on Ecuadorian territory after ratification of the Convention.3 Regardingrationae persone competence, the Petitioner retained Attorney Arthur Vercken, who was authorized to file complaints with the Commission pursuant to Article 44. 17. The Commission has prima facie competence to consider this case, since it concerns a claim alleging human rights violations protected by the American Convention. The Petitioner has locus standi to appear and present complaints on the failure to comply with provisions established in the Convention by the Ecuadorian police and prison guards, which means consequent international liability of the Republic of Ecuador. The Commission is therefore competent to examine the claim of the petitioner. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 2 The Petitioner presented a detailed two page list of the goods that he is claiming. This list was compliled at the time of Mr. Tibi's detention and is signed by him and the police lieutenant, Mr. Edison Tobar. 3 Ecuador ratified the American Convention on December 28, 1977. 3