B. State 9. In its first reply regarding this petition, the State provided a summary of the criminal proceedings brought against Mr. Martín del Campo, in which it claims that the alleged victim’s defense had “the right to exhaust all the probatory means necessary to refute his assumed involvement.” The summary also says that the judge “weighed up the elements made available to him and on the basis of applicable law... judged the accused guilty and imposed a sentence of fifty years in prison.” The State referred to the appeal, which upheld the original sentence, and to the amparo relief sought by Mr. Martín del Campo’s defense, which was dismissed because “no guarantees had been violated.” The Mexican State also referred to the recognition of innocence remedy that was declared inadmissible on April 29, 1999, and to the complaints lodged with the CNDH and the CDHDF; it also mentioned the documents and the procedures followed, which led it to conclude that “there is no forensic evidence that Alfonso Martín del Campo Dodd was subjected to acts of torture by public employees.” 10.The position of the Mexican State, contained in its reply to the Inter-American Commission, is that “as far as the judicial authorities are concerned, this matter is res judicata” and that both the CNDH and the CDHDF investigated the case and “concluded that there was no evidence to indicate a possible violation of Mr. Martín del Campo’s human rights” 4(emphasis per original). The Mexican State asked the Inter-American Commission to declare this petition inadmissible on the grounds that it did not describe possible violations of the American Convention. This position was repeated in its submission of July 21, 2000, in which the State said that “the IACHR must not act as a fourth instance over and above countries’ jurisdictional mechanisms” (emphasis per original) and that the substance of the complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission was nowres judicatain accordance with Article 23 of the Mexican Constitution, which stipulates that “no criminal trial shall have more than three instances.” 11.However, in its communication with the Inter-American Commission dated April 21, 2001, the State said that there were still remedies provided by domestic jurisdiction that had not been exhausted. This position was repeated in its next submission, dated July 9, 2001. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission Ratione Personae, Ratione Materiae, Ratione Temporis, and Ratione Loci 12.The petitioners are entitled, under Article 44 of the American Convention, to lodge complaints with the IACHR. As the alleged victims, the petition names individual persons with respect to whom Mexico had assumed the commitment of respecting and ensuring the rights enshrined in the American Convention. With respect to the State, the Commission notes that Mexico has been a party to the American Convention since March 24, 1981, when it deposited the corresponding instrument of ratification. The Commission therefore has competence ratione personae to examine the complaint. 13. The Commission has competence ratione loci to deal with the petition since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention occurring within the territory of a state party thereto. The IACHR also has competence ratione temporis since the obligation of respecting and ensuring the rights protected by the American Convention was already in force for the State on the date on which the incidents described in the petition allegedly occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae since the complaint describes violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other Requirements for Admissibility a. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 14.The case at hand involves a dispute regarding whether or not the domestic remedies provided in Mexico were exhausted or not; the Inter-American Commission must therefore adopt a decision in that regard. 4Submission from the Mexican State, February 2, 2000, p. 4. 3