10 a) it raised the objections at the appropriate procedural stage before the Commission, stating that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, because the criminal proceeding against Daniel Tibi was pending before the courts in the city of Guayaquil. Therefore, the petition should not have been admitted by the Commission, nor should it be admitted by the Court. Subsequently, the State pointed out that the criminal proceeding was suspended; b) the “amparo de libertad” is not a remedy proper, but rather a complaint filed before the superior court judge above the one who issued the confinement order, to review the lawfulness of the deprivation of liberty. This “amparo de libertad” was not the suitable and effective remedy; c) the habeas corpus remedy was not exhausted before the Justice of the Peace of the County where Daniel Tibi was detained, as set forth in Article 93 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador. This was the remedy which should have been exhausted and which could have been suitable; d) the civil action against the State, set forth in Article 22 of the Political Constitution of Ecuador should have been exhausted; this action can be filed for liability due to judicial error, inappropriate administration of justice, acts that have caused the imprisonment or arbitrary detention of an innocent person, and violation of the provisions of Article 24 of that same Constitution, regulating guarantees of due process. The Ecuadorian Civil Procedures Code also provides for the action for damages; e) the motion of appeal remedy, which could have been effective, was not exhausted. The petitioner could have filed it against the judgment issued by the judge or senior judge who heard his case; f) it cannot be said that there was unjustified delay in processing of the case, as the Inter-American Commission and the representatives asserted, since the Commission did not allow the State to solve the conflict before engaging international Justice. Pleadings of the Commission 45. The Inter-American Commission pointed out that: a) Articles 46 and 47 of the American Convention set forth that the Commission, as the main body of the system, has the responsibility of establishing admissibility or inadmissibility of a petition; b) a decision on admissibility adopted by the Commission must be considered definitive before the Court, since the State had access to the necessary guarantees before the Commission, for purposes of an appropriate and effective defense; c) Mr. Tibi was not released immediately after the provisional discontinuance, as set forth in Ecuadorian legislation (Article 246 of the Criminal Procedures Code), as there was a mandatory consultation of drugrelated cases;