Supreme Court the broadest powers to resolve the conflict in keeping with the standards of the American Convention. 27. In contrast with the foregoing, the petitioners argue that the complaint appeal (recurso de queja) had the necessary characteristics of being effective and suitable when pursued by Mr. Palamara Iribarne: This mechanism constituted the main form of challenging the resolutions handed down on appeal, and, at the same time, the most suitable mechanism for obtaining a pronouncement in a reasonable time from the Supreme Court. In fact, the complaint appeal had become a veritable third instance in the legislation and according to the prevailing practices in the Chilean legal system. This situation can be better depicted by reference to the number of complaints resolved by the Supreme Court from 1985 to 1989, i.e. 10,490, of which 2,561 refer to criminal cases.... The practice of attorneys in Chile is to use the complaint appeal, because it is definitely the one that allows them to obtain final and timely pronouncements by the Supreme Court.10 28. The Chilean State, from its first response to the IACHR, argued that domestic remedies had not been exhausted for failure to pursue the three procedural mechanisms already mentioned. As for the first of these, the State indicates: As per Article 80 of the Constitution of Chile, the inapplicability remedy (recurso de inaplicabilidad) is heard by the Supreme Court, sua sponte, or at the request of a party, in matters before it or which were submitted to it in a motion filed in any type of proceeding before another court; it may declare any legal provision that is contrary to the Constitution to be inapplicable to those particular cases. That remedy may be invoked at any stage of the proceeding, and the Supreme Court may order it suspended. Accordingly, the claimant had guarantees for all the rights now the subject of an international complaint under the Chilean constitutional order, which gave him this judicial remedy to effectively uphold those rights. Nonetheless, he did not pursue such a remedy at any point in the trial. 29. As regards the procedural remedy of cassation, the State argues that pursuing it “would have enabled the claimant to go before the Supreme Court to oppose the judgment of the Military Court of the Navy to annul the guilty verdict,” and it cites the possible grounds for pursuing such a remedy according to Article 541 of the Chilean Code of Criminal Procedure. 11 30. The Chilean State adds that the complaint appeal “does not, technically speaking, constitute a judicial remedy directed against a ruling or judgment that one seeks to challenge or correct.” It argues that to the contrary, it is a “mere disciplinary action against one or more particular judges, that does not subject to review by the Superior Courts of Justice the constitutionality of the ruling, but a possible error or abuse by the judges in the performance of their functions.”12 10 Id., p. 9. Communication from the State of July 3, 1996, p. 3. Article 541 cited by the Chilean State establishes 12 grounds on which the procedural cassation remedy may be based, which include: (a) Failure to summons one of the parties; (b) the evidence in question not having been received, or not having allowed one of the parties to present its own or to undertake evidentiary procedures important for resolving the matter....; (c) not having attached the pleadings presented by the parties; (d) not having given notice to the parties of any evidentiary procedure; (e) not having scheduled the case for hearing in the collegial courts in the manner established in Article 1163 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; etc 12 Communication from the Chilean State, February 3, 1997, p. 4. 11 6