16 alleged victim that have no final resolution “[…] due to the constant and recurring appeals lodged by the interested party". 43. On October 22, 2003, the Commission issued the Report on Admissibility Nº 76/03, in which it established that the domestic remedies were exhausted the moment the Court on Constitutional matters denied the writ of amparo, by which Salvador Chiriboga siblings intended to protect their right of not been expropriated. Moreover, it was mentioned in such report that the petitioners filed administrative remedies, but that these were not over, according to the State, due to serious problems afflicting the administration of justice in Ecuador. Lastly, the Commission pointed out that “[…] the petitioners [were] not obliged to exhaust the domestic remedies due to the exception established in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention which establishes that this remedy does not necessarily be exhausted […]” in order to declare the admissibility, whenever there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under domestic jurisdiction. As a result, the Commission declared the case to be admissible.40 44. In accordance with the criteria previously mentioned, the arguments of the parties and the documents forwarded to the Tribunal, in relation to the objection of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court finds no ground to reexamine the reasoning of the Inter-American Commission regarding the admissibility of the instant case, since such reasoning is compatible with the relevant provisions of the Convention.41 45. The argument related to the unwarranted delay in some of the judicial proceedings instituted by Salvador Chiriboga siblings and the State shall be analyzed by the Tribunal when examining the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention. 46. Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the preliminary objection of nonexhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the State. V COMPETENCE 47. The Court has jurisdiction over this case in accordance with Articles 62(3) and 63(1) of the American Convention given the fact that Ecuador is a State Party to the Convention since December 28, 1977 and has accepted the binding jurisdiction of the Court on July 24, 1984. Therefore, the Tribunal shall now analyze the merits of the case at hand, in consideration of the decision regarding the preliminary objection (supra para. 40 to 46). 40 Cf. Report on Admissibility N° 76/03 of October 22, 2003 (record of appendixes to the complaint, Appendix 3, Volume I, p. 642). 41 Cf. Case of the Serrano- Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador. Preliminary Objections. Judgment of November 23, 2004. Series C Nº. 118, para. 141.