14 existence of said remedies or of their timely exhaustion.7 Given the above, the State could not submit an argument regarding said remedies for the first time in the brief in which it filed its preliminary objections, replied to the application and made comments on the arguments and motions. 53. In regards to the State’s argument that during the procedure on admissibility before the Commission there was still a criminal proceeding pending against Mr. Tibi, and that the cassation remedy and motion for review had not been exhausted, it must point out that the Commission stated in Admissibility Report No. 90/00, of October 5, 2000, that the argument of the State regarding the existence of nonexhausted instances refers to a proceeding in regards to drug-trafficking, in which a provisional discontinuance was ordered on September 3, 1997. However, this case had been before the inter-American system for the protection of human rights since 1998, and for this reason the Commission found that there had been unjustified delay in this case, for which the exception set forth in Article 46(2)(c) of the Convention was applicable. The Commission noted that the State did not specify which instances had not been exhausted, nor in which instance the proceeding was then. 54. In the same Admissibility Report, the Commission pointed out that Daniel Tibi filed two judicial amparo remedies. The first one was rejected, and there was no reply regarding the second one. The Commission deemed that the judicial amparo remedy was sufficient and suitable to protect the rights set forth in Articles 5 and 7 of the American Convention. In regards to Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission found that there was an unjustified delay. 55. The Court finds no reason to reexamine the reasoning of the Commission, which is consistent with the significant provisions of the Convention, and therefore it dismisses the first preliminary objection filed by the State. * * * SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION “Lack of ratione materiae jurisdiction of the Inter-American Court to hear cases regarding the Inter-American Convention to Prevent and Punish Torture” Pleadings of the State 56. The State argued that: a) the Court has no jurisdiction to apply said instrument because the alleged facts that gave rise to the application supposedly took place in 1995 and Ecuador ratified the Inter-American Convention against Torture in 2000, by publishing the ratification in the official gazette, Registro Oficial, on January 13, 2000. Therefore, at the time of Daniel Tibi’s detention, said Convention was not part of the Ecuadorian legal system; and 7 See Case of Herrera Ulloa, supra note 3, para. 83; Case of the Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tigni Community. Preliminary Objections, supra note 4, para. 56; and Case of Castillo Petruzzi et al.. Preliminary Objections, supra note 5, para. 56.