suffered, but merely to rule on the performance of civil servants, and if necessary, determine disciplinary sanctions. 21. The State indicates that the Supreme Court of the Buenos Aires Province has acknowledged the existence of specific delays attributable to the Clerk of the Court. This is particularly true regarding the remission of cases to the Office of Expert Advice and in the preparation, signing, and sealing of official documents that should accompany the transfer of the psychological report attached to the case file. The State argues that to some degree, these delays could have been avoided if the petitioner had pushed the case forward appropriately. 22. The State also indicates that the petitioner raised the issue of an unjustified delay in the administration of justice in the two remedies that he pursued before the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires Province, seeking indemnification for damage caused: the recurso de inaplicabilidad (appeal for reversal of a decision which contradicts established doctrine); and the recurso de nulidad (motion to vacate based on procedural violations of the lower court trial). As for the recurso de inaplicabilidad, the State clarifies that this is a remedy whose purpose is to verify, and if indicated, correct errors of law that may have been committed by appeals courts and single instance three-judge courts when handing down a judgment. As for the recurso de nulidad, the State indicates that this is a remedy whereby the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires would overturn judgments that were handed down without respect for the formal requirements established by the provincial Constitution. Thus the State reiterates that in no way are these special remedies—the recurso de inaplicabilidad and the recurso de nulidad— appropriate means of attaining reparations for damages caused by a delay of justice, as the Tribunal is alleged to have committed. 23. The State reiterated that the petition contains no elements of fact or law that would imply a violation of the rights or guarantees recognized by the Convention. Not only did the petitioner fail to make proper use of the remedies available under domestic law, but the facts alleged in his complaint fail to substantiate his petition. Therefore, the State requested that the Commission declare the petition inadmissible. IV. A. ADMISSIBILITY Competence of the Comission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 24. The petitioner is entitled under Article 44 of the American Convention to lodge complaints before the Commission. The petition states