26. The García-Prieto Hillerman family had every legal opportunity necessary to present the Salvadorian justice system with their claims regarding violated rights and did not do so. 27. The procedural steps required by law have been followed. The criminal committal hearings began on 10 June 1994 and, on 15 March 1995, the Fifth Criminal Judge ordered the proceedings raised to the plenary level. An ordinary appeal was filed against this decision, and the Second Criminal Chamber of the First Section of the Center heard this appeal and resolved to uphold the first judge’s decision. 28. The case was submitted to the jury on 22 July 1996; as a result, the accused Pedro Antonio Sánchez Guerrero was acquitted while José Raúl Argueta Rivas was convicted to serve a 30-year prison term as one of the physical perpetrators of the crime. He is currently serving his sentence. Later, on 24 January 1998, the State captured Julio Ismael Ortiz Díaz, who was identified by Mrs. Carmen Elena Estrada de García-Prieto as the second individual involved in her husband’s killing. The Third Criminal Judge upheld his preventive custody and the classification of the crime as murder. 7 29. Public resources have been invested in the protection and safety of the García-Prieto family and others. The Commission asked the State to implement precautionary measures in favor of those individuals in June 1997 and, since that time, several meetings have been held to execute a security plan, which was later put into effect. It was launched on 6 February 1998 and an evaluation of it was carried out el pasado mes del mismo año. 30. In light of the foregoing, the State has asked for the case to be filed. The State has made no objection asserting that the remedies of domestic law had not been exhausted. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence 31. The Commission has prima facie competence to examine the admissibility of the petition in that: (1) the petition alleges that a state party, specifically El Salvador, violated rights protected by the American Convention (competence ratione materiae), (2) the incident alleged in the petition occurred when the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the Convention was already in force for the Salvadorian State (competence ratione temporis), 8 and (3) the Commission is empowered to act in connection with these petitions and other communications in accordance with the authority invested in it by Articles 44 to 51 of the Convention. B. Requirements for Admission of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Legal Remedies 32. Article 46.1 of the American Convention on Human Rights states that for a petition or communication submitted under Articles 44 9 or 45 to be admitted, the following condition must have been met: a. that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 33. The petitioners allege that in their case, they need not comply with this requirement because the judicial remedies have not been effective or adequate for protecting the violated rights. In this regard, they refer to a series of irregularities in the investigation and the trial which, in their opinion, have kept the incident from being cleared up and have delayed the investigation: to wit, the incident occurred on 10 June 1994 and, as of the time the complaint 7 8 9 See page 591. El Salvador ratified the American Convention on Human Rights on 23 June 1978. Article 44 of the American Convention reads as follows: "Any person or group of persons, or any nongovernmental entity legally recognized in one or more member states of the Organization, may lodge petitions with the Commission containing denunciations or complaints of violation of this Convention by a State Party." 4