c. Competence “ratione temporis” 42. The Commission also has jurisdiction on the basis of ratione temporis, since the acts alleged in the petition took place at a time when the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights established by the Convention was in force in the State of Costa Rica.8 d. Competence “ratione loci” 43. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione loci to consider the petition, because it contains allegations of violations of rights protected by the American Convention which took place in the territory of the State of Costa Rica. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 44. On May 29, 1998, the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit of San José handed down a decision absolving Mauricio Herrera Ulloa and “La Nación” newspaper of any guilt in the criminal complaint with civil suit for damages filed by Féliz Przedborski. Mr. Przedborski then filed a recurso de casación [extraordinary appeal for reversal of the lower court opinion] with the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. The Supreme Court vacated the earlier decision and sent the case back to the Criminal Court of the First Judicial Circuit, which, in a verdict handed down on November 12, 1999, convicted the journalist, Mauricio Herrera Ulloa, and the newspaper “La Nación” of the offenses. The petitioners filed a recurso de casación with the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which rejected the appeal in a decision issued on January 24, 2001. In view of the fact that no further appeals on that decision are legally admitted, the judgment remains firm and executory. 45. The State alleged that domestic remedies were not exhausted, and it pointed to the appeal of unconstitutionality as the appropriate, effective remedy to be exhausted by the petitioners. In this regard, the Commission notes that the central object of the petition is the sanction imposed on the assumed victims in the conviction issued on November 12, 1999 and the order of execution dated February 1, 2000, which they challenged using the ordinary appeals available in criminal procedure, and, when they were rejected, arrived at a situation of res judicata. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has found that an appeal of internal jurisdiction is adequate whenever it is sufficient to protect the infringed legal situation, since “in all national bodies of law, there are many remedies, but not all of them are applicable in all circumstances.”9 Finally, the Commission notes that the petitioners were not required to exhaust the remedy of unconstitutionality, since it is not a suitable remedy to protect the legal situation that was supposedly affected in the case in point, consisting of a conviction the immediate execution of which was ordered by the Costa Rican courts. 46. At the same time, the Commission points out that on a number of occasions, the Court has found that “prior exhaustion of domestic remedies allows the State to solve the problem on the basis of domestic law before having to face an international process.” 10 In this regard, the Commission notes that Article 8(1) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction states the following: Officials who administer justice may not: 1. Apply laws or other rules or legal instruments of any kind that are contrary to the Constitution. If there are doubts regarding the constitutionality of these rules and legal instruments, they must consult on the constitutional jurisdiction. 8 Costa Rica ratified the American Convention on April 8, 1970, and on July 2, 1980 it presented to the OAS General Secretariat its instrument of recognition of the jurisdiction of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to Articles 45 and 62 of the Convention. 9 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case, paras. 63 and 64. 10 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velásquez Rodríguez Case. Judgment of July 29, 1998, para. 61. 7