48. In a brief of December 14, 1995, regarding the claim for compensation, the State acknowledged that “all the domestic remedies have been filed and exhausted in accordance with the principles of international law.”14 Subsequently, after the parties had tried unsuccessfully to reach a friendly settlement, the State, prior to the Admissibility Report, submitted observations on the petitioner’s arguments concerning the administrative proceeding in a brief of November 19, 2001. In this regard, it argued that: (a) the facts that the petitioner uses as grounds for his claim for compensation occurred before the Convention entered into force […] and, therefore, are excluded from the Commission’s competence: (b) “the petitioner did not use the available remedies to contest his procedural situation,” for example, by an appeal for annulment, but rather “he agreed to all the procedural actions ordered by the respective judicial authorities; […] the extended duration of his procedural situation was evidently the result of [Mr.] Grande’s indifference or legal inexperience and/or that of his legal counsel.” The claim for compensation is based on “the invalidation decided by the criminal justice system, which he did not request, of a search to which he not only agreed spontaneously, but that was a result of his own complaint”; (c) the inexistence of miscarriage of justice (Article 10) based on the decisions of the administrative court and on the principle of estoppel, and (d) “the dismissal of the case was founded on the impossibility of obtaining new evidence for the prosecution,” in relation to the violation of the presumption of innocence (Article 8(2) of the Convention). b) Admissibility Report No. 3/02 49. Subsequently, the Commission issued Admissibility Report No. 3/02 of February 27, 2002, in which it analyzed the admissibility requirements and considered, in this regard, that “the parties agree that the pertinent domestic remedies with regard to Mr. Grande’s claim to obtain compensation were exhausted based on the decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of April 12, 1994, that rejected the remedy of complaint.” Regarding the scope of the petition, the Commission indicated that “the complaints lodged before it refer to Mr. Grande’s detention, the related criminal proceedings filed against him in 1980, proceedings that remained pending until the charges were dismissed (1989), and the civil actions that he filed seeking compensation.” 50. Regarding the time frame for presentation of the petition, based on the file of the administrative proceedings, the Commission indicated that the “Mr. Grande received the final judgment on May 3, 1994, and the petition was presented on October 31, 1994, received […] on November 2, 1994”; thus, it was presented within the six months established in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention. Also, regarding the characteristics of the facts adduced, “based on the principle of iuria novit curia, in its decisions on merits [the Commission indicated that] it would also examine the provision established in Articles [8 and 25 of the Convention] that any person accused of a criminal offense has the right to be heard within a reasonable time.” Lastly, the Commission rejected the arguments relating to the alleged violation of Article 10 of the Convention, “because no final judgment was handed down against Mr. Grande, but rather his case was dismissed.” 51. Following the Admissibility Report, in its brief of November 7, 2002 (in response to the Commission’s note of September 3, 2002), the State indicated in the relevant part that: “it appeared that the analytical framework of the Report did not coincide 14 Cf. Brief of the State of December 14, 1995 (appendices to the application, appendix 3, f. 729). 12