and provided confrontation of evidence to which the subjects were entitled under the Constitution, with the relevant questioning at the time the evidence was aired;” and that “if the defendants did not officially declare to their defenders that they had been allegedly tortured, said defenders could in no way be responsible for supposedly “acting passively as the petitioners affirm.” 5 10. According to the Mexican State, the appeal court limited itself to determining the probative value of the statements by the defendants but did not rule on the matter of torture “because it was not part of the appeal case” and despite the fact that Mr. García Cruz’s and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre’s injuries had indeed been documented in the case file, “no evidence was presented to demonstrate that they had been inflicted by their captors to force them to make incriminating statements.” Thus, the court cannot be charged with serious omissions in the defense of the accused, therefore, it considers groundless the demand for a reversal of the proceedings. Finally, the State maintains that the court that heard the amparo proceedings “acted within the bounds of the law” and did not violate the human rights of Juan García Cruz and Santiago Sánchez Silvestre. 6 11. Based on these allegations, the Mexican State maintains that in this case, there have been no human rights violations because “the actions of the Federal Judiciary in hearing and deciding the case strictly adhered to the individual guarantees provided both in the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and in the American Convention on Human Rights”. 7 It adds that Mr. García Cruz and Mr. Sánchez Silvestre failed to present evidence to disprove the accusations against them and that “in any legal system, those who make groundless claims to be right cannot be so adjudged, only those who provide irrefutable and unquestionable evidence of their arguments.” 8 Lastly, the State maintains that the different courts that heard the case found García Cruz and Sánchez Silvestre guilty, therefore the matter isres judicata and the IACHR must not act as a fourth level of appeal in addition to domestic jurisdictions. Therefore the Mexican State requests that the IACHR declare the petition inadmissible as it does not represent any possible human rights violations. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci of the Inter-American Commission 12. The petitioners are entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints with the IACHR. The petition states that the alleged victims are individuals in whose regard Mexico has undertaken to respect and guarantee the rights established in the American Convention.As for the State, the Commission notes that Mexico has been a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to review the petition. 13. The IACHR has competence ratione loci to hear the petition because it alleges that human rights protected in the American Convention were violated in the territory of Mexico, a State party to that treaty. Similarly, the Inter-American Commission has competence ratione temporis because the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date on which the facts stated in the petition allegedly took place. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, given that the petition reports violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 5Idem, pg. 3. 6The State summarizes the action of the Third Collegiate Criminal Court of the First Circuit as follows: It should be noted that in the action for amparo under reference, it was taken into account that the defendants and their attorneys had been informed in a timely manner of the grounds for the proceedings and the reason for the accusation, as well as the names of the persons that had made depositions against them. They were allowed to appoint a defense in accordance with the law; legally proffered evidence was admitted and aired; the information they needed for their defense was provided to them; the hearing before the court took place in accordance with the law and with the parties present; and both in the judgment of the lower court and in the final judgment on appeal, a sentence of formal imprisonment was handed down for the crime established in the proceedings. Communication from the Mexican State dated September 1, 2000, pg. 5. 7Idem, pg. 6. 8Idem. 3