25. The State affirms that the petitioner filed his petition before the Commission without having fully exhausted domestic remedies. The State accordingly considers that the petition is inadmissible for failing to meet the requirements of Article 46 of the American Convention. n this regard, the State indicates that the petitioner failed to present an extraordinary appeal (recurso extraordinario) before the Supreme Court as contemplated in Article 14 of Law 48. The State notes that, according to the applicable legal regime, if Mr. Furlan had considered the decision at second instance to be arbitrary to the point of presenting a federal question, he could have interposed such an appeal within 10 days of notification of that decision. Had that been denied, he could have then filed a direct appeal (recurso de queja) before the high court. Because he declined to do so, he thus consented to the decision and the amount and conditions of compensation set forth therein. 26. The State notes that, having consented to the decision issued, what remained was only the process of execution, which, at the time of its initial response, was underway and following the steps prior to payment. The State indicates that, while it recognizes that the presumed victim and his family have suffered, an award of compensation concerns only the direct and the indirect victims. The State considers that a number of the claims raised by Mr. Furlan before the Commission did not fall within the scope of the national compensation regime. 27. By note of February 27, 2003, the Foreign Ministry reported that the debt in favor of Sebastian Furlan resulting from the judicial process had been cancelled by the accreditation of consolidation bonds authorized by note of December 17, 2002. The State notes that, following the economic emergency, bonds were used to pay all debts in which the State was the debtor, and affirms that this was not incompatible with the National Constitution or the American Convention. 28. Additionally, the State contests the admissibility of the present petition on the basis of the socalled “fourth instance” doctrine. In this regard, the State notes that international systems for the protection of human rights are subsidiary to national systems, which must be allowed to put their commitments into practice and resolve conflicts at the domestic level. Only if such conflicts cannot be resolved internally in accordance with those commitments would the international system be competent to intervene and issue a determination. The State quotes case law of the Commission to the effect that the latter is not competent to review sentences issued by national tribunals acting in the sphere of their competence and applying due judicial guarantees unless it can identify a potential violation of an international obligation. The State affirms that, according to this doctrine, the Commission cannot act as another instance of appeal, and that a disagreement with the outcome of judicial proceedings – in the present case with the amount of compensation -- is not sufficient to provide a basis for the Commission to exercise its jurisdiction. 29. The State maintains that the petitioner exercised his right to be heard, with due guarantees, before the national judiciary, and that a petition questioning the amount of compensation awarded is inadmissible. The State considers that the petitioner has provided no element of fact or law to demonstrate a possible violation of the American Convention. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis and ratione loci 30. The petitioner has standing to file a petition with the Commission pursuant to the terms of Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition names as alleged victims individuals with respect to whom the State undertook to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As to the State, the Commission notes that Argentina has been a State party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has the competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 5