Guayas would also represent an effective remedy.17 In addition, the State argues that there was also the possibility of filing for damages and injury against the judge or magistrate responsible for error, in accordance with the Code of Civil Procedure. 18 The State adds that “the mere fact that a domestic remedy does not produce a result favorable to the petitioner does not in and of itself demonstrate the inexistence or exhaustion of all effective domestic remedies. For example, the petitioner may not have invoked the appropriate remedy in a timely fashion.”19 28. Regarding the petitioner’s allegations regarding unwarranted delay, the State responds that the courts honored the guarantee of a reasonable period of time. It states in this regard that jurisprudence has not established a precise timeframe for the duration of a proceeding but rather criteria have been established that should be taken into account in each specific case. It considers that the time used is within the limits of reasonability established by the InterAmerican Court and the Commission in its precedents and that the instant case was resolved in a time period consistent with the type of trial involved, with the capabilities that the State has within its reach. The State indicates that Mrs. Peralta Suárez had free access to the apparatus of the courts and at no time was she prevented from exercising her right to be heard under equitable conditions by the competent bodies. 20 Therefore, the State considers that it has not violated Article 8.1 of the American Convention. 29. In view of the preceding arguments, the State feels that the petition does not meet the requirements established in Article 46 of the American Convention and Article 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure and asks the Commission to declare it inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 30. The petitioners have standing, in principle, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual, with respect to whom the Ecuadoran State agreed to respect and guarantee rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission indicates that Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited its ratifying instrument. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to review the petition. 31. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, in that it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that would have taken place within the territory of Ecuador, a state party to the Convention. The Commission is competent ratione temporis in that the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the facts alleged in the 17 The State indicates that this remedy is provided by Article 348(3) of the 1983 Code of Civil Procedure. Note No. 42-281/07 received on November 29, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 006206, dated November 19, 2007. 18 The State indicates that this remedy is provided by Article 979 of the Code of Civil Procedure: “Action for damages and injury is admissible against the Judge or Magistrate who in the performance of his duties causes economic damage to the parties or interested third parties, due to delay or denial of justice, for breaking express laws, for usurpation of functions, for granting denied appeals, or for rejecting remedies granted by the law, expressly or for altering the decision when finalizing it. This action is also admissible against clerks and other employees of the Court, who through their action or omission have caused economic damage, through bad faith or negligence ” and Art. 984 provides that if a complaint is admitted, the payment of damages, injury, and costs shall be ordered in the decision. Note No. 4-2210/06 of July 20, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 025898, dated June 30, 2006 and Note No. 4-2-281/07 received on November 29, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 006206, dated November 19, 2007. 19 The State cites the I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment on the Merits, para. 67. Note No. 4-2210/06 of July 20, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 025898, dated June 30, 2006. 20 Note No. 4-2-281/07 received on November 29, 2006 from the Permanent Mission of Ecuador to the OAS, forwarding the report from the Office of the Attorney General of Ecuador, Official Letter No. 006206, dated November 19, 2007. 6