and 25 to Mr. Lapo’s detriment. The State maintains that the judgments were issued within the Court’s competence and that the judges were the appropriate judges to hear the matter, so that there is no reason for the Commission to review these decisions. The Commission is not an appeals court or a court of fourth instance and it is not within its functions to annul judicial decisions, but rather to safeguard that the States provide their citizens with a judicial system that guarantees due process. 35.The State argues that Mr. Lapo presented his complaint to the Commission on June 7, 2002; eight months after the Superior Court dismissed the charges and ordered his release. Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention provides that the complaint must be presented within 6 months of the notification of the Court’s judgment, and consequently, the Commission should declare Petition 172/99 inadmissible. In summary, the State requests that the Commission declare Petition 172/99 inadmissible because it does not fulfill the requisites set forth in Article 46 of the American Convention and in Article 38 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure. IV. CONSOLIDATION OF THE PETITIONS 36. The two petitions, P. 12.091, regarding Mr. Chaparro and P. 172/99, regarding Mr. Lapo, involve the same factual situation, and for that reason, the Commission, pursuant to Article 29(1)(d) of its Rules of Procedure, has decided to join the two petitions and to process them together. V. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. The Commission’s competence ratione personae, ratione loci, ratione temporis, and ratione materiae 1. As regards both petitions 36.The petitioner is entitled to lodge petitions with the IACHR under Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition cites as an alleged victim an individual on whose behalf Ecuador undertook to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention. Insofar as the State is concerned, the Commission finds that Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, when it deposited its respective instrument of ratification. Accordingly, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 37. The Commission has competence ratione loci to take up the petition because it claims violations of rights protected in the American Convention that allegedly took place in the territory of a state party to that treaty. 38. The Commission has competence ratione temporis inasmuch as the duty to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was in force for the State at the time when the alleged violations contained in the petition are said to have occurred. 39. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights set forth in and protected by the American Convention. B. 1. a. Other admissibility requirements for the petition Exhaustion of domestic remedies As regards the petition of Mr. Chaparro, the first petitioner 40. The State disputes that domestic remedies have been exhausted in this case, and argues that the petitioner failed to invoke remedies which were available to him such as cassation or a motion