and effective investigation into the death of Francisco García Valle. As regards article 11 of the Constitution, they states that the judges had engaged in harassment and defamation and in "malicious" judicial proceedings against María Luisa Acosta. B. Position of the State 18. The State basically agreed with the petitioners' indications regarding the date, place, and manner in which the murder of Mr. García Valle had been consummated. However, the State disagreed as to the causes that appear to have prompted the crime. It said that the murder of Mr. García Valle was an isolated event committed by "antisocial individuals with criminal instincts" and had had nothing to do with indigenous peoples' issues, State policies, or persecution of human rights defenders. As for domestic proceedings, the State concurred with the petitioners' account. However, it denied that they meant that the State had incurred international liability. 19. In general, the Nicaraguan State maintained that the authorities involved in the investigation of the facts had acted in accordance with their functions. It asserted that as soon as the police authorities had become aware of the murder, they had initiated inquiries. It added that the judges who had taken the dismissal of proceedings and conviction decisions in relation to the murder of Mr. García Valle, had demonstrated objectivity in the performance of their functions, had not acted opportunistically, had not been biased, and had not "secured” a situation of impunity. 20. The State argued that the aforementioned criminal proceedings had been conducted with full respect for and equal treatment of the parties involved. It stated that the Criminal Court Judge had taken note of the accusations formulated by Mrs. Acosta against the persons allegedly responsible for the murder of her husband and had instituted criminal proceedings against all of them. It added that it had not impeded Mrs. Acosta's access to justice because she had at all times had at her disposal the remedies and mechanisms permitted by law. 21. The State maintained that, with a view to identifying, trying, and convicting those responsible for the crime, the authorities had taken decisions based on both fact and law. It asserted that the conviction had been handed down with due legal process. It stressed that the validity of domestic legal proceedings does not stem from their being acceptable to the parties concerned, but rather from their observance of the rules of due process during the proceedings. It argued that the fact that the decision to dismiss the case against those denounced by Mrs. Acosta as the alleged instigators and perpetrators of the murder of Mr. García Valle had not been appealed within the time allowed implied tacit consent to said decision, which does not amount to a denial of access to justice. 22. The State also pointed out that it could not be accused of denying access to an effective remedy, because the right of appeal was established by the Constitution. It indicated that to file an appeal, the appellant was legally obliged to provide paper for photocopying the judgment to be appealed within 24 hours. It added that Mrs. Acosta's representative did not comply with the rules governing the appeal and the State could not be blamed for that. 23. As for the right to humane treatment of Mr. García Valle's family members, the State argued that it had guaranteed due process, with both parties being treated equally, which had resulted in a conviction at the will of Nicaraguan society represented by the court's panel of judges (tribunal de jurados). It argued that it was not up to the IACHR to act as a review body for decisions hand down by domestic courts.