A. Competence 22. Under Article 23 of the IACHR’s Rules and Article 44 of the American Convention, the petitioner is entitled to lodge complaints with the Commission. In the petition, the alleged victim is an individual person whose rights are protected under the American Convention, which the State of Argentina is bound to abide by. As to the State, the Commission declares that Argentina is a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, when it deposited its instrument of ratification of the treaty. As a result, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to assess the petition, in so far as it alleges violations that seemingly occurred within the territory of Argentina. 23. The Commission is competent ratione temporis, since by the time that the facts in the petition are said to have taken place, the State was already bound to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae regarding the alleged violations of human rights protected by the American Convention on Human Rights. 24. The Inter-American Commission takes note of the State’s claim about the failure to refer the petition within the stipulated period. In this regard, the IACHR says that after receipt there is no deadline for the referral of petitions to the State, under the American Convention and the Commission’s Rules. Moreover, in none of them is it set forth that the time in between the receipt of a petition and its transmission to the State makes the petition inadmissible. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 25. Under Articles 31.1 of the Rules and 46.1.a) of the American Convention, for a petition to be admissible, domestic remedies must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. This requirement is aimed at enabling national authorities to take cognizance of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if applicable, reverse the situation before it is heard by an international body. 26. The petitioner affirms that in objection to the condemnatory sentence dated October 28, 1999, she lodged an appeal, a complaint appeal for denial of appeal, an extraordinary appeal and a complaint appeal for denial of extraordinary appeal, with the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice, whose resolution was notified on October 30, 2001. In turn, the State affirms that the requirement of prior exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met and has no objections in this regard. 27. As a result, the Commission concludes that in this case, domestic remedies have been pursued and exhausted in conformity with Articles 46.1 of the American Convention and 31.1 of the Rules. 2. Timeliness of the petition 28. Under Articles 46.1.b of the American Convention and 32.1 of the Rules, for a petition to be declared admissible by the Commission, it must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the alleged victim was notified of the final judgment. According to the present complaint, the resolution of the Argentine Supreme Court of Justice was notified on October 30, 2001 and the petition to the IACHR was filed on April 26, 2002. In view of this, the Commission finds that the requirement set forth in Articles 46.1 (b) of the Convention and 32.1 of the IACHR’s Rules has been met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and International res judicata 29. From the case file, there is nothing to indicate that the subject matter of the petition is pending in another international proceeding for settlement or that it duplicates a petition already examined by this or 4