31. With regards to the notification of the judgment, the State claims that due notice of the decision was served on the defense attorneys, on the Office of the Attorney General for Justice representing the victims, and on the victims that had asked the judicial authority to do so. According to the State, this was in line with the legislation in force in Nicaragua at the time, which defined the parties involved in a trial as the judge, the defendant, the accuser and/or the criminal prosecutor, with the latter serving as the victim’s representative through whom notice of judgments and other judicial decisions was to be given. It explains that under that law, a private citizen could participate, but only with the status of a private accuser or complainant. The State maintains that neither Mr. Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña nor his mother, either acting on their own behalf or through representatives or the consular service of the Embassy of Ecuador, or any public official of that embassy – in spite of the broad dissemination and public awareness of the incident – appeared in the capacity of “private accuser” at trial. The State, however, emphasize that that does not mean that the alleged victims’ rights were not represented, as the Office of the Attorney General for Justice, the agency responsible for public legal action, brought charges against the alleged perpetrators and attempted to prosecute them at trial. 32. In connection with this, the State says that: If the petitioner Patricio Roche Azaña and the Embassy of Ecuador accredited in Nicaragua at that time did not appear and did not request participation in the criminal trial that took place, the State of Nicaragua cannot assume responsibility for their absence; it did, however, ensure that they were represented by the Office of the Attorney General for Justice, in accordance with national law. 33. Regarding the alleged impunity caused by the actions of the justice system, the State maintains that procedural guarantees and due process were respected at all times and that the events in question were analyzed and decided upon by means of a jury verdict, a legal institution enshrined in the Constitution of Nicaragua and found in many legal systems around the world. The State contends the jury reached a conscientious decision regarding the facts and the guilt of the accused, and its determination, which was correctly followed by the judge, formed the basis of the verdict. The State reports that according to Article 484 of the Nicaraguan Code of Criminal Instruction, no appeals may be brought. Questioning the decision reached in the process, the State concludes, would mean questioning the jury trial system itself. 34. Regarding the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies, the State reiterates that the petitioner did not appear at trial, nor 7