5 21. The petitioners stated that on August 5, 1999, when numerous pieces of evidence required for the complaint were still to be produced, Judge Raúl Irigoyen ruled to dismiss the case because no crime had been committed, and this decision was notified to the relatives of the presumed victim on August 10, 1999. They noted that in light of that judgment, the relatives of the presumed victim lodged an appeal with the National Chamber of Criminal and Correctional Appeals, Court V, which confirmed that the file should be dismissed. They indicated that, in response to that ruling, they filed an appeal for review by a higher court on October 12, 1999, which was denied on October 21, 1999, and notified on November 1 of that year. They further stated that on February 3, 2000, they submitted an appeal for special review (recurso de casación) to the National Chamber of Criminal Review (Cámara Nacional de Casación Penal), which was declared inadmissible on March 7, and notified on March 15, 2000. Finally, they said that on March 23, 2000 they lodged a complaint remedy (recurso de queja) with the Supreme Court of Justice, which was dismissed on December 18, 2001, and notified on December 28, 2001. 22. The petitioners allege that the Argentinian State should be held responsible for violating Articles 8 and 25 of the American Convention because substantially: i) the District Attorney’s Office No. 10, under the responsibility of Juan Sansone, never requested any measure or showed interest in the course of the investigation, limiting himself to take note of the judge’s ruling; ii) the authorities did not conduct a serious, objective, diligent, and transparent criminal investigation; iii) various pieces of evidence were improperly denied; iv) the case was dismissed even though numerous pieces of evidence suggested by the relatives of the presumed victim were still to be submitted; iv) there was a lack of impartiality and objectivity on the part of the authorities during the course of the judicial process; and v) a reasoned conclusion concerning the death of the presumed victim was not received because the courts that heard the appeals limited themselves to reproduce the arguments of the judge of first instance. They held that “the principle of the effectiveness of the judicial appeal becomes fictitious if its processing is plagued by irregularities ….” 23. Finally, the petitioners contend that Article 24 of the American Convention was violated in the instant case because “the police decided to take with them three citizens who, curiously, happened to be black,” that “several civil witnesses stated that there had been no reason to make an arrest, but nonetheless, three persons were arrested”, and that “by chance, these three people were foreigners of African descent, which, at the very least, raises the question as to whether the arrests were motivated by racial reasons more than by the alleged ‘disturbances on public thoroughfares.’” 24. In conclusion, the petitioners alleged presumed violations of the rights set out in Articles 4 (right to life), 5 (right to the humane treatment), 7 (right to personal liberty), 8 (right to a fair trial), 24 (equality before the law ), and 25 (judicial protection) of the American Convention. 25. As concerns fulfillment of the admissibility requirements, the petitioners argued that in the instant case they had exhausted domestic remedies and that the petition had been submitted within six months, pursuant to Article 46 of the American Convention. B. Position of the State 26. The State argued that the petition is inadmissible because it does not describe facts that tend to constitute a violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. It stated that a detailed analysis of the complaint and a thorough reading of the four bodies that make it up shows that the petitioners intend that the Commission serve as a “fourth instance.”