24. The State holds that the petition does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights recognized by the American Convention, as required by Article 47(b) of the Convention. Concretely, it considers that the duration of the domestic proceedings was within reasonable limits as recognized by the Court and the Commission and, therefore, the State has not committed a violation of Article 8(1) of the Convention. It argues that the purpose of the principle of "reasonable time" ‘is to prevent accused persons from remaining in that situation for a protracted period and to ensure that the charge is promptly disposed of.’11 The State says that the petitioners had free access to the judicial apparatus and to all of the remedies available against the alleged violations of the Convention; so much so, in fact, that the National Police Court confirmed the sentence of Carlos Enrique Rivera Enríquez to eight years of imprisonment.12 It alleges that in the instant case there was no “denial of justice,”13 given that a “confirmed” sentence exists and the petitioners cannot take their case to the Commission since it is not its function “to act as a quasijudicial fourth instance and to review the holdings of the domestic courts of the OAS Member States.”14 25. The State considers that “the violations committed to the detriment of young Aroca Palma have been redressed by the Ecuadorian courts, which means that in no way have any of his rights under the Convention or any other of human rights treaty ratified by Ecuador been abridged.” 15 As to the alleged failure to provide reparation for civil liability, the State argues that the domestic system of laws affords an effective remedy to redress civil injury, namely a civil suit for damages, recognized at Article 72 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the National Civilian Police, 16 which the petitioners did not pursue. Based on the arguments given above, the State requests that the Commission declare the petitioners’ complaint inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the IACHR 26. The petitioners are entitled, in principle, to lodge petitions with the Commission under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition names as alleged victim an individual on whose behalf the Ecuadorian State undertook to observe and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Thus, the Commission has ratione personae competence to examine the petition. 27. The Commission is competent ratione loci to examine the petition because it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that are 11 The State cites I/A Court H.R., Suárez Rosero Case. Judgment of November 12, 1997. Series C, No. 35, para. 70. Official letter 023728 of March 22, 2006, from the Office of the Procurator General of Ecuador, enclosed in Note 4-2-130/06 of April 17, 2006. 12 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. 13 The State says that “denial of justice” occurs when a jurisdictional organ fails promptly to dispose of matters submitted to it for a decision. Official letter 023728 of March 22, 2006, from the Office of the Procurator General of Ecuador, enclosed in Note 4-2-130/06 of April 17, 2006. 14 The State cites IACHR, Clifton Wright, Resolution No. 29/88, Case 9260, Jamaica, 14 September 1988, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.74, Doc. 10 rev. 1. Official letter 023728 of March 22, 2006, from the Office of the Procurator General of Ecuador, enclosed in Note 4-2-130/06 of April 17, 2006. 15 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. 16 The State cites the Code of Criminal Procedure of the National Civilian Police: “Article 72: In the event of a conviction, the claim for damages shall not suspend execution of the sentence and shall be heard by the judge presiding over the case in an oral summary proceeding and under a separate record, without prejudice to preservation of procedural unity.” Official letter 023728 of March 22, 2006, from the Office of the Procurator General of Ecuador, enclosed in Note 4-2-130/06 of April 17, 2006. 6