violation of the rights to life, personal liberty, a fair trial, and judicial protection protected in the American Convention. 19. As to compliance with the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioners argue that the exceptions provided in Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention are applicable in view of the unwarranted delay in the trial of the cases in the police and ordinary courts. 20. As regards the State’s argument that the petitioners seek to use the Commission as a fourth instance tribunal to review the decisions of domestic courts (see below, Position of the State), the petitioners contend that even though a confirmed judgment exists that convicts one of the culprits, that individual is not serving the sentence and, therefore, the case of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma has remained in impunity. B. Position of the State 21. The State claims that the petitioners’ complaint is inadmissible inasmuch as the remedies provided under domestic law have not been exhausted as required by the American Convention. The State also argues that the Ecuadorian courts repaired the violations committed against Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma and, therefore, none of the rights enshrined in the American Convention have been violated.8 22. On the question of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State argues that the petitioners lodged their complaint with the Commission when the remedies under domestic law had not yet been exhausted, since a decision was pending on an appeal filed by the petitioners with the National Police Court. The State holds that the petitioners should have waited until the criminal proceeding concluded before invoking the protection of the inter-American system. The State also contends that the parties have been afforded all the fair-trial guarantees and that the person responsible for violation of the right to life of Joffre Antonio Aroca Palma was punished, which demonstrates the effectiveness of the criminal proceeding in the police courts.9 23. The State argues that the petitioners “become badly confused” in their analysis of the decisions of the Ecuadorian police courts, which is chronologically but not legally correct and that it does not support the exception of unwarranted delay under Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. The State contends that the statutory time limits are “guidelines for determining reasonableness” and that, therefore, it is essential to examine said reasonableness on a case-by-case basis when determining the possible international responsibility of the State. 10 The State argues that the proceeding against Carlos Eduardo Rivera Enríquez in the police courts lasted approximately two years and that, therefore, there was no unwarranted delay under the terms of Article 46(2)(c) of the American Convention. acts that might have led to the imprisonment or arbitrary detention of an innocent person, and for instances of violation of the provisions set forth in the Article 24. The State shall have the right to seek indemnity from the judge or official responsible.” 8 Official letter 01054 of May 15, 2003, from the Office of the Procurator General, submitted in Note No. 4-2-79/03 of June 3, 2003. 9 Official letter 01054 of May 15, 2003, from the Office of the Procurator General, submitted in Note No. 4-2-79/03 of June 3, 2003. 10 The State cites the European Court of Human Rights which held in its judgment in the Stogmuller case of November 10, 1969, that the “reasonableness of a court order or of length of time must be weighed within its own and specific context, that is, there are no general universally valid criteria and what is involved is something that is legally known as a question of fact […]”. Official letter 01054 of May 15, 2003, from the Office of the Procurator General enclosed in Note No. 4-2-79/03 of June 3, 2003. 5