21. The State also asserts that the facts described by the alleged victim do not constitute violations of the Convention. In its view, the petitioner is seeking review of a court ruling only because it is not in his favor. Furthermore, with respect to the publication of the recordings of conversations between former Minister Saulo Arboleda and former Minister Rodrigo Villamizar, Colombia states that this evidence was expressly barred during the criminal proceedings and maintains that the judicial authorities based their decisions on evidence other than this illegally obtained information. 22. In addition, regarding the petitioner’s reference to the existence of new evidence justifying the review of his criminal case, the State indicated that he could avail himself of the action for review, which was an adequate national legal mechanism designed to resolve the legal situation described. On that basis, it claimed non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. 23. Lastly, it argues that the IACHR is not a court of appeal with the power to review decisions made by domestic courts in accordance with the law and due process. By accepting the petition, it would be acting as a “fourth instance,” which is yet another reason for which the petition should not be admitted. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 24. Under Article 44 of the American Convention and Article 23 of the Rules of Procedure, the petitioner may submit petitions to the Commission. This petition names as the alleged victim an individual whose rights under the American Convention the State agreed to respect and protect as from July 31, 1973, when it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to consider the petition. 25. The Commission has competence ratione loci to consider the petition because the alleged facts occurred within the jurisdiction of a state party to the American Convention. The Commission also has competence ratione temporis under the American Convention because the facts occurred after the ratification of said treaty. Lastly, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the alleged facts involve possible violations of rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility Requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention and Article 31(1) of the Rules of Procedure make admission of the claims in the petition subject to prior exhaustion of the remedies available under domestic law in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow the national authorities to consider the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, resolve the situation before it is considered by an international court. Article 46(2) of the Convention and Article 31(2) of the Rules of Procedure provide that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies shall not apply when (i) the domestic legislation of the state concerned does not afford due process of law for the protection of the right or rights that have allegedly been violated; (ii) the party alleging violation of his or her rights has been denied access to the remedies under domestic law or has been prevented from exhausting them; or (iii) there has been unwarranted delay in rendering a final judgment under the aforementioned remedies. 30. In the instant case, the petitioner claims that, in the absence of the guarantee of double instance, he could not appeal his October 25, 2000 conviction by the Criminal Division. He argues that Colombian law does not provide for appeal in proceedings against high-level government officials. However, he indicates that he submit a tutela action that was rejected on December 1, 2000, by the Sectional Council, which did not consider his rights to due process, privacy, and equal treatment to have been violated in the investigation and criminal proceedings against him. Subsequently, the Constitutional Court also rejected this request in a decision of March 6, 2002. For its part, the State indicates that the petitioner has not exhausted the 4