the petitioners, and the Declaration, like the Convention, protects the rights to liberty and due process (Articles I, XXV and XXVI) invoked in the case. Once Argentina’s ratification became effective, the American Convention became the principal source of legal obligation, 3 and the rights and obligations expressly cited by the petitioners became applicable. Accordingly, the Commission is competent ratione temporis to address the claims presented by the petitioners. 4 45. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae to examine the substance of the complaints raised because, if proven to be true, they could constitute violations of rights protected under the American Convention and Declaration. 46. Given that the petition alleges violations of rights protected under the American Convention and Declaration that have taken place in the territory of a State Party, the Commission concludes that it has the competence ratione loci to take cognizance of it. B. Other requirements for the admissibility of the petition a. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 47. Article 46 of the American Convention specifies that, in order for a case to be admitted, "remedies under domestic law [must] have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law." This requirement exists to ensure the state concerned the opportunity to resolve disputes within its own legal framework. 48. The parties agree that the prosecution of the alleged victims terminated with the denial of the “recurso de hecho” by the Supreme Court on April 28, 1998. In this sense, the parties are in accord that domestic remedies were invoked and exhausted with respect to the claims arising in relation to the prosecution and concerning the constitutionality of the application of the Code of Military Justice. 49. The State has advanced two basic arguments with respect to the requirements of Article 46 at different points in the proceedings before the Commission. In its initial response, the State indicated in general terms and without further explanation that the petitioners had failed to exhaust domestic remedies with respect to their prolonged preventive detention. However, a review of the domestic proceedings indicates that claims concerning the length of the proceedings, including the period of preventive detention, were raised before and reviewed by the National Chamber of Criminal Casation. That Chamber noted in its considerations that the length of the proceedings had been challenged based on the right of the accused to a decision within a reasonable time defining their respective legal positions, and putting an end to the restriction of their liberty. The petitioners sought further review before the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the claims. The defendants also challenged the sufficiency of the legal basis for the preventive detention orders and the legality of the detention incommunicado. The Commission deems this sufficient to show that the State was placed on notice of the claims now pending before the Commission, and that applicable remedies were invoked and exhausted. 50. The alternative argument asserted by the State is that the petitioners never sought compensation before the domestic courts for having been sentenced in judicial error or for the period they were held in preventive detention in excess of their prison sentences. The petitioners, for their part, affirm having filed an administrative action seeking compensation for the latter. For the purposes of the present analysis, the Commission considers that the petitioners invoked and exhausted domestic remedies with the objective of obtaining a judicial decision as to the invalidity of the sentences against them and the length of their preventive detention. Given that they invoked a series of remedies, including before the Supreme Court, and did not obtain a decision in their favor, it is not clear, nor has the State explained, what other available and effective domestic remedies remained to be exhausted that could have 3 Id., para. 46. See generally, IACHR, Report Nº 67/01, Case 11.859 Carvallo Quintana (Argentina), June 14, 2001, paras. 48-49; Report Nº 3/02, Case 11.498, Grande (Argentina), Feb. 22, 2002, paras. 32, 34. 4 9