guarantee due process of law in the disciplinary summary proceeding. The petitioner also states that this procedure omitted fundamental stages and procedural methods to guarantee due process. In this regard, the petitioner maintains that Daniel Urrutia was deprived of the right to a defense in the disciplinary proceeding, given that the Court of Appeal’s communication of January 12, 2005, in which it asked the alleged victim to report within a period of five days on what motivated him to send a copy of his thesis to the Supreme Court did not contain any formal notice that a disciplinary proceeding had begun nor any prior and detailed communication regarding the charges against him. The petitioner indicates that he was also given a period of five days to respond without having been summoned to a preliminary hearing to present his defense, in accordance with Article 536 of the Organic Code of Courts. 12. The petitioner also argues that when ruling on the appeal, the objectivity and impartiality of the judges of the Supreme Court was compromised because they already had knowledge of the academic text that led to the disciplinary process. In this regard, the petitioner alleges that those judges should have disqualified themselves ex officio and should have called upon fellow judges or ad hoc judges to rule on the appeal, as provided under Article 218 of the Organic Code of Courts.5 The petitioner also indicated that the remedy for constitutional protection under Article 20 of the Constitution would be ineffective in that it would be decided in the first instance by a Court of Appeals and on review by the Supreme Court of Justice. B. Position of the State 13. As indicated above, the Inter-American Commission sent the State the pertinent parts of the petition on May 11, 2007 and asked it to submit the information it considered pertinent within a period of two months. That request was repeated on February 11, 2009, September 13, 2011, and finally on October 25, 2013. However, despite the repeated requests, at the time of the decision in this report the State has not responded to the request for observations IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 14. The petitioner is authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as alleged victim Mr. Daniel Urrutia Labreaux, an individual with respect to whom the Chilean State committed to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, Chile has been a party to the American Convention since August 21, 1990, the date on which it deposited its ratifying instrument. Thus, the Commission is competent ratione personae and ratione temporis to examine the petition. 15. In addition, the IACHR is competent ratione loci and ratione materiae to hear the petition in that it alleges violations of human rights established in the American Convention and the alleged actions were perpetrated in the territory of the Republic of Chile, a State Party to the Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of the domestic remedies 16. Article 46.1 of the American Convention establishes as a requirement for the admission of a petition that domestic remedies have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. Both the Commission and the Inter-American Court have indicated that only remedies suitable for remedying the violations allegedly committed must be exhausted.6 Article 46.2 5 According to the petitioner, Article 218 states: “In those cases where the Supreme Court cannot act due to the disqualification of a majority or all of its members, the panel shall be made up of judges from the Appeals Court of Santiago, called upon according to their seniority”. 6 I/A Court H.R. Velásquez Rodríguez v. Honduras Case. Merits. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C, No. 4, para. 64. 3