4 9. On February 2, 2000, the State submitted a brief whereby it transmitted its comments regarding to the claimants’ communication and referred to the proceedings taken by the Prosecutorial Agency as a consequence of the events that occurred on May 30, 1992, when the lives of Mr. Gerardo Zamudio-Aldaba and Juana Patricia Martín-del-Campo-Dodd had been taken, and about its decision to prosecute Mr. Martín-del-Campo “for his probable responsibility in the perpetration of the double homicide.” The State also pointed out that “from the time the examination of the case started, both, the accused and the defence, enjoyed the right to exhaust all means that they would have deemed required as proof to counter the allegation of his probable responsibility.” It indicated that Mr. Martín-del-Campo was convicted to 50 years in prison and that he filed a motion of appeal against this decision and later filed an amparo appeal motion against the judgment, which was dismissed. In respect of the foregoing, the State expressed that in accordance with Article 23 of Mexico’s Constitution, “as far as the judicial authorities are concerned, this matter sits as res judicata.” Furthermore, Mexico pointed out that Mr. Martín-del-Campo filed a recognition-of-innocence remedy with the Distrito Federal Superior Court, which was declared not applicable on April 29, 1999. In turn, the State informed that the case had been under consideration by the Distrito Federal Human Rights Commission and the National Human Rights Commission, and that both had concluded that the denounced human rights violation had not been proven. 10. Lastly, the State expressed that “it cannot be considered that rights agreed in the American Convention would have been violated, especially those relative to personal liberty, those to which anyone accused in criminal proceedings is entitled, or those relative to proper argumentation and motivation, and judicial protection. By itself, this fact impedes the continuation of this case and its eventual admissibility.” For this reason the State requested the Inter-American Commission to declare “inadmissibility or dismissal of the petition under Article 47 of the Convention and Article 41 of the Rules of Procedure [of the Commission], for failure to establish violations of such human rights as provided for in the Convention.” 11. On February 17, 2000, the Commission submitted the State’s communication to the claimants, and allowed them a term of 30 days to submit their comments. On March 16, 2000, the claimants applied for an extension of this term, which was granted by the Commission. On April 13, 2000, they submitted their respective comments to Mexico’s communication, and expressed, inter alia, that “the [State’s] contention that, by itself, the fact that the [alleged] victim would have exhausted all internal jurisdiction remedies for his defence precluded the possibility of violation of human rights was unacceptable, since, in fact, Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the victim to exhaust domestic remedies” before the victim can file a report with the Inter-American Commission. In this sense, they added that while “it is true that the resources to which the State made reference were used and exhausted, they did not function effectively to correct the situation of Mr. Martín-delCampo’s having been sentenced to 50 years in prison.” On May 01, 2000, the Commission sent said comments to the State in order for it to submit “final comments.” 12. On July 21, 2000, the State submitted a communication in which it stated, among other things, that “there is no violation of [Mr.] Martín-del-Campo’s human rights, since individual liberties provided in both the Constitution of the United Mexican States and the American Convention were observed at all times.” In like manner, the State pointed out that the Commission “must not be a fourth instance in addition to the States’ jurisdictional mechanisms and that the matter constitutes res