Mr. Palma’s family presented a writ of habeas corpus before the Mayor’s Office of the Metropolitan District of Quito on May 30, 1997 since at the time of these events, there was no other remedy in Ecuadorian legislation to locate an illegally detained person and ensure that he or she obtain his freedom or be placed under the orders of a competent judicial authority. They point out that based on the statement given by Mr. Lenin Ordóñez Ortiz in the year 2000, the case involving Mr. Marco Bienvenido Palma Mendoza’s disappearance was reopened on January 22, 2001 and that a guilty verdict was issued on March 19, 2001 against three of the direct perpetrators of his kidnapping and murder. They indicate that charges were dismissed against the other people involved in the crime because of deficiencies in the investigation. 43. The State argues that it is not the function of the IACHR to act as a fourth instance and review the decisions of national courts, since in this case there was a serious and effective investigation conducted and a guilty verdict was issued on March 19, 2001 which was upheld by the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice on June 26, 2002. Additionally, it argues that the petitioners did not exhaust domestic remedies since it was possible for them to file for oral summary proceedings in order to obtain compensation from those liable for the civil damages and that this recourse would be an effective way to seek reparations for material damages. 44. In this case, the Commission observes that for the purposes of providing an appropriate recourse to remedy the alleged violations of human rights, it is incumbent upon the State, in light of its obligation to take punitive action, to initiate proceedings to identify, prosecute, and punish all those responsible for committing these crimes, diligently pursuing every stage of the proceedings to a conclusion.12 Because of this, the Commission believes that oral summary proceedings would not constitute an adequate and effective recourse in this case to remedy the violations alleged by the petitioners, and that the remedy was not something that they themselves could exhaust. 45. Therefore, the Commission believes that the writ of habeas corpus filed on May 30, 1997 and the judgment of the Second Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of June 26, 2002, have satisfied the requirement that remedies of domestic jurisdiction be exhausted as established in Article 46 (1) of the American Convention. 2. Deadline for lodging the petition with the Commission 46. Article 46(b) of the American Convention establishes that for a petition to be deemed admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the party alleging violation of his rights was notified of the final judgment. 47. For the purposes of establishing whether the petition has been lodged within a reasonable time period in accordance with Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission, the IAHCR must consider the date on which the alleged violation of rights occurred and the circumstance of each case. 48. Keeping in mind that Mr. Palma was disappeared on May 16, 1997 and that the petition was received by the IACHR on September 24, 1997, the Commission believes that the petition was presented in a timely fashion and that the requirement for admissibility in terms of the time period for presentation should also be considered satisfied. 3. 12 40. Duplication of procedures and cosa juzgada IACHR, Report No. 27/99, Case 11.697, Ramón Mauricio García-Prieto Giralt of March 9, 1999, para.