33. The State contends that, moreover, the petitioners have not claimed to be under one of the exceptions provided for by Article 46(2), paragraphs a, b, and c of the Convention. It considers that in any event an allegation of this nature would be not only unacceptable, but also completely out of order. Indeed, it points out that the petitioners could not have claimed that the State of Chile’s domestic legislation does not provide for due legal process, nor that they were prevented from gaining access to domestic remedies, nor that there were unwarranted delays in the decisions regarding these remedies. 34. In addition, the State affirms, the complaint does not include facts constitutive of a violation of protected rights, in accordance with Articles 47 and 34 of the Convention and of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, respectively. It argues that from the petition no facts can be gleaned that constitute a violation of the rights provided for by the Convention. The state further argues that not a single one of the violations alleged by the petitioners is backed by objective events that could lend them the least plausibility. To the contrary, they reveal the evident intention on the part of the petitioners to overturn adverse judicial decisions, handed down within the framework of the new criminal trial system adopted by the State of Chile. 35. According to the State, the defendants have not managed to explain who prevented them, and how, from disposing of sufficient time to prepare their defense in trial, or when their right to question their witnesses was restricted, or when their right to offer and present their own witnesses in their trials was violated. The State affirms that the petitioners acknowledge in their initial petition that they were not denied their right to submit evidence. 36. Another cause of inadmissibility, the State argues, is that the petition is manifestly groundless and out of order. According to the State, this cause entails dismissal of unsubstantiated petitions that only in appearance report alleged human rights violations. The State notes according to the background provided by the complainants, the alleged violations of the Convention took place during the oral trial and in the judgment that followed, which found them guilty of the crime of terrorist arson on December 19, 2001, with prejudice to the Polanco-Podenco farm, and which affected an area of 108 hectares of pine and eucalyptus trees, valued at 600,000 United States dollars, same judgment that sentenced them to 10 years and one day of longer imprisonment to the medium degree, expenses and costs. 37. Regarding the fourth instance formula, argued to be another cause of inadmissibility, the State notes that the petitioners have appealed to the Inter-American Commission as if it were a fourth judicial instance, competent to hear the facts and law applied to the instant case, without any reasonable background that would provide grounds for claiming a violation of a right guaranteed by the American Convention. According to the State, both the complementary nature of the Convention, and the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies assign an essentially subsidiary function to the organs for the protection of fundamental human rights in the inter-American system. 38. Taking the foregoing into account, the State contends, the Commission and the InterAmerican Court are not competent to act as an appeals court or fourth instance and should restrict themselves to judge those cases in which there is a presumption of a violation of any rights established by the American Convention. The State argues that the organs for the protection of human rights can only examine domestic judicial decisions of a State on the assumption that the petition is based on a decision handed down following a lack of due process, or that apparently violates any other rights provided for by the Convention. Finally, it is the opinion of the State that what the petitioners seek is a judgment amending the decision finding the defendants guilty made by the Oral Trial Court of Angol. 39. The State of Chile requests that the Inter-American Commission admit its arguments and declare the petition lodged by Messrs. and Mme. Juan Patricio Marileo Sanabria, Florencio Jaime Marileo Saravia, Patricia Roxana Troncoso Robles, José Benicio Huenchunao Mariñan and Juan Ciriaco Millacheo Lican inadmissible. 6