28. The State argues that the Commission is not competent to hear the matter, and that it is inadmissible, for lack of competence over the subject matter and because the petition did not meet the necessary requirements, respectively. 29. The State alleges that the Commission lacks competence ratione materiae to hear the alleged violations of international human rights instruments. It argues that the Commission has no mandate to hold the Brazilian State responsible for alleged violations of rights set forth in international instruments other than those that are part of the inter-American human rights system. It cites Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules of Procedure. 30. In addition, it alleges that the IACHR is not competent to rule on violations of rights contained in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and ILO Convention 111, as these treaties were entered into in forums other than the Organization of American States, have their own mechanisms for implementation and supervision, and do not confer on the organs of the inter-American system any mandate in this regard. It supports this argument by citing part of the decision of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in the Las Palmeras case (State’s brief, p. 4). 31. The State argues that the IACHR also lacks competence to find the Brazilian State responsible for alleged violations of Articles 3, 6, and 7 of the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Protocol of San Salvador), for according to Articles 19.6 thereof, the IACHR only has a mandate to examine alleged violations of Articles 8.a and 13. Moreover, it asserts that the verification and implementation of all other provisions of the Protocol that were alleged are done by means of periodic reports by the states, whose implementation is being organized by the competent organs of the OAS. 32. The Brazilian State argues that as regards the violations alleged for which the IACHR does have a mandate, Articles 1 and 24 of the American Convention, the petitioner did not comply with the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies. It argues: “The domestic proceedings for clarifying the accusations against Mr. Munehiro Tahara in the criminal realm are in the regular stage of advanced processing before the competent organs” (Answer, p. 6). Moreover, it reports that the appeal was ruled on favorably by judgment of the Fifth Special Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeals of the State of São Paulo on August 11, 2004, sentencing the accused to two years reclusion, in the initial semi-open regime, for the crime of which he was accused. 33. The State also argues that the judgment, in addition to reformulating the judgment below, extinguished the punitive claim of the State, based on the running of the statute of limitations, pursuant to Article 107(IV) of the Criminal Code. This part of the decision is subject to requests for amendment of the judgment filed by the Public Ministry on September 29, 2004, which alleged that the crime of racism is imprescriptible, under Article 5(LXII) of the Constitution of Brazil. On September 22, 2005, the Fifth Special Criminal Chamber amended the judgment, excluding the statute of limitations. 34. The State assures the Commission that the criminal proceeding is going forward in regular fashion. It also emphasizes that the Brazilian State has been making efforts to fight racism and to promote racial equality, “many of which have already been reported at length to this honorable Commission, either through public hearings, or by the procedure of examining petitions, as in the case of Simone André Diniz” (Answer, p. 7).