Chamber, acknowledged that there had been a violation of Mr. Grande’s right to due process as regards obtaining evidence, the State did nothing to remedy this violation, either by reparation or by a disciplinary administrative investigation to determine whether police or judges should be sanctioned.” The Commission did not submit specific arguments on the alleged violations of Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention during the administrative proceeding at the public hearing or in its final written arguments. 80. For his part, the representative stated that “[t]he first instance judgment in the administrative jurisdiction decided in favor of Jorge Fernando Grande on the grounds that the State had acted unlawfully (even though it was subsequently overturned by the Federal Appellate Chamber based on an argument tending to show that no judicial error had occurred) must be taken into consideration because it clearly acknowledges an unlawful act of the State.” Additionally, the representative indicated that “[t]he rejection of the remedy filed by Mr. Grande in that instance was founded on the inexistence of a judicial error, without taking into account [either] the unlawfulness of the evidence that had been decided in the criminal proceedings, [or] the prolonged lapse of time before a decision was reached.” He also reiterated some of the Commission’s remarks on this point. Lastly, the representative concluded that the State had violated the rights embodied in Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention, in relation to Article 1(1) thereof, to the detriment of Mr. Grande. During the public hearing and in his final oral arguments, he repeated some of his previous arguments without referring specifically to the alleged violations. 81. Meanwhile, the State declared that, in the present case, “it understands that the so-called fourth instance doctrine is being constituted regarding the administrative proceeding” and, in that regard, stressed that “the special appeal filed against the judgment of the National Appellate Chamber for Federal Administrative Matters of the Federal Capital was rejected for technical reasons.” It added that the alleged victim resorted to the Commission and the Court to make his claim “merely because he disagreed with the decision of the National Appellate Chamber for Administrative Matters.” To conclude, the State indicated that “no violation of due process or access to justice occurred in this case, because Mr. Grande had [the] possibility of accessing suitable and effective remedies, and yet, as was shown, made poor use of them, ultimately trying to blame this on the State.” Finally, it noted that “Mr. Grande is trying to obtain financial compensation based on the argument of alleged violations that occurred in the domestic jurisdiction.” In its brief with final arguments, the State repeated some of the arguments indicated above. Judicial actions during the administrative proceedings 82. Jorge Fernando Grande filed a claim for damages under the administrative jurisdiction against the State for its responsibility in the deficient functioning of the administration of justice, as well as for its irregular and unlawful conduct.24 In this regard, Mr. Grande stated that the applicable doctrine indicated that, “in the case of alleged judicial error or improper functioning of the administration of justice, the State’s responsibility is […] evident and direct,” because every judicial decision must be the result of the determination of the facts on which the interpretation and application of the rules of law that decide the disputed situation are based. Therefore, when this interpretation is based “on an erroneous assessment of the facts or on their 24 Cf. Claim for damages filed by Jorge Grande (undated), in the administrative jurisdiction, in case No. 28,928 (file of the Commission’s appendices, appendix 12, fs. 970 top 978). 19