carried out. Accordingly, the petitioner bases his claim before the IACHR on the fact that the Court of the Third Western Section itself established in its resolution that: From the inspection and experts' report it is evident that the proper methodology was not even remotely followed, while, in addition, the expert appraisals are not conclusive in their assertions and leave significant room for doubt. They cannot therefore be used to determine what happened and dispel the doubts raised by the opposing versions of the facts [on the one hand, the petitioner claimed that the grenade was inside the vehicle already before it exploded, while, on the other, the defense of the accused maintained that it was tossed in from the outside]. […] Given the time that has elapsed and the disappearance of the vehicle, it is becoming difficult, almost impossible, to conduct other expert appraisals to dispel the doubt that exists, doubts that the experts themselves raised by acknowledging the need for further investigations. As a consequence of the insufficient investigation, no sufficient determination was reached of the corpus delicti or of the part played by the accused [...]2 16. In short, Mr. Aguirre Magaña maintains that, due to deficiencies in the investigations carried out by auxiliary services of the police; alleged irregularities on the part of the forensic scientists taking part in the investigations; various defects of due process during the criminal proceedings in which he participated as the victim; and allegedly irregular actions by members of the Judiciary, his alleged aggressor had gone unpunished, which meant that he had been denied access to justice. He mentions, moreover, that the proceedings had gone on for more than 11 years, mainly due, he alleges, to delaying tactics by the judicial authorities involved. 17. Based on the foregoing, the petitioner argues that the State violated, to his detriment, the rights established in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 1.1 said Convention. B. Position of the State 18. As of the date this report was adopted, the State had not provided its observations with respect to the present petition. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCY AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 19. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge petitions with the Commission. The petition alleges the violation of rights enshrined in the American Convention on Human Rights to the detriment of an individual in respect of whom the Salvadoran State undertook to respect and ensure those rights from the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification of the aforementioned treaty, June 23, 1978. Based on the foregoing and taking into account that the alleged violations are said to have occurred within the territory of a state party to this treaty after it deposited its instrument of ratification, the IACHR concludes that it is competent ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis and ratione materia to examine the petition. 20. The above shall not preclude the IACHR, during the merits stage in the processing of this petition when it examines possible violations of the American Convention, from taking into consideration other 2 20, 2004. Original petition received on July 28, 2005, attached: Judgment of the Court of the Third Western Section in Ahuachapán of July 3