of money and granting fuel permits, initiated by the military criminal judge of the First Naval
Zone, who commenced the trial proceedings on June 15, 1994.
12.
In addition, the State maintains that the petitioner could still file a writ for
review, set forth in Article 385 of the Ecuadorian Code of Criminal Procedure in the following
terms: “the remedy of review shall be applicable to all convictions and shall be lodged with
the Supreme Court of Justice in the following cases: ...”; in its submission, however, the State
does not specify in which cases.
13.
Secondarily, following the failure to exhaust the available domestic remedies,
the State maintains that this petition has exceeded the six-month deadline stipulated in the
Convention, in that Mr. Grijalva lodged his complaint with the Commission in November 2001,
in that eight months had gone by since the final judgment. The final judgment is taken to
mean the act of March 31, 2001, by which the Court of Military Justice dismissed the appeal
filed by Mr. Grijalva against the judgment of the military criminal judge and upheld in its
entirety the judgment handed down by the lower court judge.
14.
The State maintained that Mr. Grijalva enjoyed complete access to judicial
remedies and that he has described nothing that would tend to indicate a violation of his right
to due process under Article 8 of the Convention. The State further pointed out that the
complaint alleging a violation of the right to judicial protection, set forth in Article 25 of the
American Convention, is inadmissible, in that said article says that the State must guarantee
the possibility of developing judicial remedies, which it did do in this case.
IV.

ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY

A.

Competence of the Commission Ratione Personae, Ratione
Materiae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Loci

15.
The petitioner is entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to
lodge complaints with the Commission. The petition names Mr. Vicente Aníbal Grijalva
Bueno as the alleged victim. Mr. Grijalva is a person under the terms of Article 1(2) of the
American Convention. The respondent State, the Republic of Ecuador, ratified the American
Convention on December 28, 1977. The Commission therefore has competence ratione
personae to examine the petition.
16.
As regards its competence ratione loci, the alleged violations were committed
within the jurisdiction of the Republic of Ecuador.
17.
With respect to its competence ratione temporis, the alleged violations were
committed at a time after the ratification of the American Convention on December 28, 1977.
18.
As for its competence ratione materiae, the Commission is competent because
the alleged violations are of rights protected by the American Convention.
B.

Other Requirements for Admissibility

a.

Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies

19.
Article 46 of the American Convention provides that the admissibility of a case
depends on the remedies available under domestic law having been “pursued and exhausted
in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” This requirement was

Select target paragraph3