State, the Commission notes that Peru is a State party to the American Convention, which it ratified on July 28, 1978. Hence, the Commission has competence ratione personae to examine the petition. 24. The Commission also has competence ratione materiae by reason of the fact that the allegations made in the petition could constitute violations of rights protected by the American Convention. 25. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis by virtue of the fact that the facts in question allegedly occurred as of June 1991, when the obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the American Convention was already binding upon Peru. B Admissibility requirements for the petition 1. Exhaustion of the remedies under domestic law 26. The Commission notes that the petition in this case, dated July 2, 1991, was filed before the remedies under domestic law had been exhausted. That fact, however, does not preclude the admissibility of the petition at this stage in the process. The IACHR has pointed out that the requirements for a petition’s admissibility must be examined at the time the Commission decides the question of admissibility. Article 46 of the Convention states that “Admission by the Commission of a petition or communication lodged in accordance with Articles 44 or 45 shall be subject to the following requirements: a) that the remedies under domestic law have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law.” The decision as to the admissibility of a petition is not made at the time the petition is filed. Under Article 33 of the Commission’s Regulations, for example, the Commission may ask the petitioner to complete the requirements omitted in a petition when the Commission considers that the petition is “inadmissible or incomplete.”1 27. To declare a case inadmissible because the remedies under domestic law have not been exhausted at the time of filing, even when by the time the Commission rules on admissibility those resources have already been exhausted, would imply a decision based solely on the formalities of the law, which is totally at odds with the protection of the human rights recognized in the Convention. The alleged victims could be left without any means of defense. Even if a new petition on the same facts were presented, the Commission would in all likelihood be unable to examine the case if by that time the six-month period provided for in Article 46(1)(b) of the Convention had expired. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that “It is generally accepted that the procedural system is a means of attaining justice and that the latter cannot be sacrificed for the sake of mere formalities.”2 28. The Commission is confirming that the situation that must be considered to establish whether the domestic remedies have been exhausted is the situation at the time the issue of admissibility is decided. Consequently, the Commission considers that with the ruling handed down by the Criminal Transitory Chamber of the Supreme Court on October 17, 1994, the rule contained in Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requiring exhaustion of domestic remedies is satisfied. 2 Filing deadline 29. In the instant case, the petition was lodged before the ruling of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Transitory Chamber on October 17, 1994. Therefore, the requirement established in Article 46(1)(b) of the American Convention is met. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 30. It is the Commission’s understanding that the subject of the petition is not pending in another international proceeding for settlement. Nor is it substantially the same as one 1 2 IACHR, Report N° 52/00, Dismissed Congressional Employees, Cases 11.830 and 12.038, paragraphs 18-22. IACtHR, Cayara Case, Preliminary Objections, Judgment of February 3, 1993, par. 42. 4