5 21. With respect to the violation of the right to a defense and to effective protection, the State alleges that the petitioner’s claim to the effect that the court made a rushed decision and did not rigorously examine the action brought lacks any basis. The State believes that that argument is “too vague to prove” and that it is improbable that there was insufficient meticulousness in evaluating the 16 evidence. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Commission's Competence ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 22. The petitioner is entitled to lodge a petition with the Commission pursuant to the provisions of Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual for whom the State has assumed a commitment to respect and protect the rights recognized by the American Convention. In terms of the State, the Commission notes that Peru has been a State party to the Convention since July 28, 1978, the date on which it deposited its instruments of ratification. Therefore, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 23. The Commission has competence ratione loci to examine the petition, since the petition alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention that took place within the territory of a State party to the Convention. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis, since the obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention was already in effect for the State on the date on which the rights violations alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other Admissibility Requirements of the Petition 1. Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies 24. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a complaint lodged with the Inter-American Commission to be admissible, remedies available under domestic law must have been attempted and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to hear the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to have the opportunity to resolve the situation before it is heard by an international body. 25. In this case, the petitioner alleges that all regular remedies available in Peruvian jurisdiction have been exhausted and that no other effective appeal is possible against the various judgments rejecting his arguments. Concretely, the appeal seeking review and reconsideration and the appeal seeking to have the judgment set aside, both filed in response to the judgment by the Second Labor Court, were rejected on August 27, 1991, and September 2, 1991, respectively. In addition, the appeal seeking to set aside the judgment that rejected the amparo action brought by the petitioner was rejected by the Supreme Court's Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law on March 15, 1993. On April 29, 1993, the petitioner asked that his case be examined by the Full Chamber of the Supreme Court. No decision on that petition appears in the case file. On July 26, 1996, the petitioner lodged an appeal seeking for his amparo action to be reopened and examined by the Constitutional Court, a petition he reiterated on January 13, 1997. On June 4, 1997, the Third Specialized Civil Chamber of the Lima Superior Court rejected his petition. On July 18, the petitioner lodged an appeal, which was rejected on July 25, 1997. On August 19, 1997, the petitioner filed a recurso de queja, appealing the refusal to allow 17 the appeal, which was resolved on November 27, 1997. 16 State observations submitted on March 13, 2003. 17 See annexes to the initial submission.