b. Second action for review 13. The petitioner reports that, in compliance with the constitutional ruling in (a) above, the Office of the Inspector General conducted a new investigation and determined in its decision of August 21, 2009, that Rodrigo Villamizar had not acted in a public capacity. Considering this outcome to constitute new evidence, the alleged victim lodged a second action for review with the Criminal Division. However, the request was declared inadmissible on technical grounds in orders entered March 9 and May 4, 2011. 14. It should be noted that, following the above inadmissibility order, the petitioner, who considered the Criminal Division to have violated his right to due process, lodged a tutela action with the Superior Court of the Judiciary, which denied the requested protection on February 9, 2012. c. Third action for review 15. The petitioner reports that, on the basis of the State’s argument in its response to the petition filed at the IACHR, which pointed to the availability of the action for review under Colombian law, he presented a third action for review with the Criminal Division on September 16, 2014. However, the action was declared inadmissible in an order entered May 25, 2015, which stated that the allegations concerning the criminal proceedings presented no new evidence and which also instructed him to refrain in the future from initiating additional actions for review of the same decisions. 16. Following this rejection, the petitioner filed a tutela action with the Civil and Labor Divisions of the Supreme Court of Justice, which denied his requests, confirming the rejection of the third action for review of the conviction. The alleged victim indicates that protection was denied because the Supreme Court of Justice considers itself a body of last resort and therefore does not accept tutela actions against its judgments. The aforementioned action was subsequently referred to the Constitutional Court, which declined to review it in an order of February 15, 2016, despite the insistencia request [request to persist] submitted by two judges, who urged the Constitutional Court to review the case. 17. The petitioner claims that his rights to privacy, due process, and due judicial protection were violated by the use of illegal evidence (the aforementioned recording). He also claims that the judicial authorities did not evaluate the evidence presented correctly and denied him the possibility of submitting additional evidence. Regarding the right to equal treatment before the law, the petitioner says that, in the criminal proceedings, the State applied different criteria for Rodrigo Villamizar, which supposed unequal treatment. 18. Lastly, he indicates that, in accordance with Colombian law, he was tried in sole instance, which meant that he could not appeal his conviction. In this connection, he states that, under Article 235(4) of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over punishable acts alleged against cabinet ministers and that, under Article 75(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, decisions issued by the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Justice cannot be appealed. He says that the application of these precepts denied him the protection of double instance in a criminal case. 19. On the basis of the foregoing, the petitioner claims that the State violated the rights recognized in Articles 8, 11, 24, and 25 of the American Convention to his detriment. B. Position of the State 20. The State maintains that the petition should be considered inadmissible since it was lodged out of time, i.e., after the six-month period provided in the American Convention. It indicates that the Constitutional Court judgment upholding the rejection of the petitioner’s tutela action was issued on March 6, 2002, and that the petition was presented on November 5, 2002; in other words, that eight months elapsed between the final judicial decision and the petition to the IACHR. 3