16 52. The same report of November 2, 1998 concludes as follows: 1- The Motion to Review Conviction of one page formally and in keeping with the provisions of Article 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is denied. 2- The aforementioned motion could be granted under article 363 subsection 2 of the new Code of Criminal Procedures, but this provision is not in force and cannot be applied. 3- The Plenary Supreme Court must request prompt enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedures, in order to provide a solution to cases such as the one that is the subject of this report and other similar ones and [the Court] must even suggest other grounds to be able to file a motion 33 to review conviction. A. Legal Analysis 1. Preliminary consideration as to State’s allegation of “fourth instance” 53. Before proceeding to the legal analysis of the case, the Commission wishes to address the State’s “fourth instance” allegation in its merits observations. Regarding this point, after an analysis of the positions of the parties, the Commission previously explained in its Admissibility Report 20/09, that the petitioner’s allegation regarding “the alleged inversion of the burden of proof during his criminal trial, together with his conviction on the grounds that he did not fully establish his innocence”, implied an analysis at the merits stage because the referred allegation could result in violations of the rights enshrined in Articles 8 and 25 of the Convention34. 54. This time, the Commission reminds that pursuant to the principles regulating the determination of States’ responsibility, which have been repeatedly fleshed out by the bodies of the Inter-American system: [I]n order to clarify whether the State has violated its international obligations owing to the acts of its judicial organs, the Court may have to examine the respective domestic proceedings. In light of the above, the domestic proceedings must be considered as a whole, including the rulings of the appellate courts, and the role of the international court is to establish whether the proceedings as a whole, as well as the way evidence was produced, were in accordance with 35 international provisions. 55. In this regard, the fact that the State’s act alleged to be in violation of the Convention is a domestic judicial proceeding, and even a judicial ruling, does not render the organs of the InterAmerican system incompetent to examine it under States’ obligations as set forth in the Convention. 33 Annex 12. Administrative Matter No. 170-98, Report of November 2, 1998 signed by Supreme Court Justices José Bacigalupo Hurtado and Ismael Paredes Lozano. Annex to petitioner’s submission of November 6, 2001. 34 IACHR, Admissibility Report No. 20/09, Agustín Bladimiro Zegarra Marín (Perú), March 19 ,2009, par. 69 IA Ct. of HR, Case of Zambrano Vélez et al v. Ecuador. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of July 4, 2007. Series C No. 166, para. 142 [para. 58?]. IA Ct. of HR. Case of Lori Berenson Mejía v. Peru. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2004. Series C No. 119, par. 133; IA Ct. of HR. Case of Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala. Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of November 25, 2003. Series C No. 101, para. 200; and IA Ct. of HR. Case of Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras. Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs. Judgment of June 7, 2003. Series C No. 99, para. 120. 35