following the date on which the complainant was notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. 50. In the case at hand, the acquittal of the alleged perpetrators entered on February 27, 1997, by the First District Criminal Judge of Chinandega department was the final ruling in accordance with Nicaraguan domestic law. 51. In connection with that, and as indicated above, the petitioner claims that the alleged victims were not notified of the decisions reached during the proceedings and only learned of the acquittal judgment a year and a half after it was issued when, in August 1998, an official from the Ecuadorian foreign ministry gave Mr. Patricio Roche Azaña’s mother a copy of the judgment handed down by the Chinandega District Criminal Jury Court. 6 The petitioner asserts that the petition with the IACHR was lodged four months after learning of the final judgment of the Nicaraguan courts. The State responds that the alleged victims were not notified of the domestic court’s final judgment because they chose not to register with the court as a “private complainant” in the trial that investigated and prosecuted the incident. 52. The Commission notes that the alleged victims were not informed of the final judgment, in part, because they were not registered as complainants or plaintiffs as required by Nicaraguan law and, consequently, were not a part of the proceedings that investigated the incident. The State notes that neither of the alleged victims informed the competent authorities of an address for receiving information on the proceedings and contends that, had they done so, “had they expressed that desire to be notified, for which purpose the law requires the indication of an address within the jurisdiction of the judge, it would have been complied with, even though neither the Embassy of Ecuador in Nicaragua nor the petitioner […] provided the judge with an address or location for receiving notifications.”7 53. On the other hand, the State does not provide evidence that the court, the Attorney General’s office, or any other State official notified Mr. Patricio Fernando Roche Azaña of his rights regarding intervening in the trial or to be notified of the final judgment. As the State reports, Mr. Roche Azaña was in critical condition when the judge visited the hospital on April 30, 1996 and apparently was sufficiently incapacitated that he could not provide a declaration or speak with the judge. Mr. Roche Azaña asserts that he spent his first month in the hospital in a coma, which the Government does not dispute. Mr. Roche Azaña then spent the next two months in the hospital until 6 Communication from the petitioner, received April 10, 2006. 7 Submission from the State, received July 5, 2007. 11