of Education. There, a Special Subcommittee of Supervisors was formed “to conduct an exhaustive inquiry into the complaint and to be able to institute a summary administrative proceeding against the accused teacher,”24 who, as the law requires, was punished with dismissal. 28. In response to the petitioners’ allegation that the exception to the rule requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies should be applied on the grounds that the domestic remedies are neither effective nor suitable, the State cites the jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court to the effect that “[I]t must not be rashly presumed that a State Party to the Convention has failed to comply with its obligation to provide effective domestic remedies.”25 The State is therefore asking the Commission to shift the burden of proof and place it on the petitioners instead, since it has already shown that internal remedies are available to address the human rights violations alleged. 29. The State argues that the supposed violation is neither attributable to nor the fault of a State agent, since it is a universally recognized principle that States are only internationally responsible for their own acts or crimes. Thus, it argues, it is not guilty of any action or omission that could compromise its international responsibility, since the acts alleged in the present petition cannot be blamed on or attributed to the State. 30. The State observes that since this was a relationship between private individuals, the Ecuadorian State’s only involvement has been to administer justice effectively and efficiently; the records of the proceedings show that the State has abided by the law. 31. For all the foregoing reasons, the State is asking that the Commission declare this petition inadmissible, as it does not satisfy the requirements set forth in articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention. It is therefore requesting that the Commission declares, based on articles 27, 28 and 31 of Note No. 4-2-277/07 of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, November 16, 2007. 25 In this regard, the State cites the Velázquez Rodríguez Case, para. 60. See I/A Court H.R., Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1988. Series C No. 4. Note Nº 4-2-277/07 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ecuador, dated November 16, 2007. 24 12