6 28. In principle, the petitioners are authorized by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual with respect to whom the Ecuadorian state committed to respect and guarantee the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission points out that Ecuador has been a State Party to the American Convention since December 8, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 29. The Commission is also competent ratione loci to hear the petition in that it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention that took place within the territory of Ecuador, a State Party to that treaty. The Commission is competent ratione temporis in that the obligations to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention were already in effect for the State on the date when the events alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae because the petition denounces violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 30. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention requires the prior exhaustion of the remedies available domestically in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law, as a requirement for the admission of complaints regarding the alleged violation of the American Convention. The purpose of this requirement is to allow domestic authorities to learn of the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, to resolve it before it is heard by an international body. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that the remedies provided by the domestic jurisdiction have been exhausted, which means the second instance decision of the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil issued on April 24, 1996 in the labor proceeding initiated by Juan José Meza and the mechanisms intended to ensure the enforcement of that decision. For its part, the State alleges that additional remedies exist that were not invoked. 31. The case file indicates that once the decision was final its enforcement was the responsibility of the Fourth Labor Court of Guayas, which appointed a settlement expert to submit an enforcement report. The report was submitted on July 3, 1996 and concluded that the alleged victim was owed 27,000 dollars for the bonus and 81,000 dollars for unpaid compensation with a triple surcharge. On August 19, 1996 the Fourth Court appointed a new expert who submitted an enforcement report on August 23, 1996, which omitted the 27,000 dollars for the bonus and the 81,000 dollars for unpaid compensation with triple surcharge. In a ruling dated September 20, 1996 the Fourth Court accepted and approved the enforcement report. In response, the petitioners filed an appeal and on June 19, 1997 the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Guayaquil decided to revoke the ruling because the settlement would be incomplete. 32. The Commission has in the past indicated that in order to meet the requirement of prior exhaustion, petitioners must only exhaust suitable remedies, i.e., the remedies available and effective for remedying the situation being denounced. The Commission notes that from the moment of the second instance decision from the First Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice the petitioners made various efforts, notably many petitions to the courts, in order to achieve enforcement of the decision. In the instant case regarding a contractual dispute between two parties, suitable remedies were the labor complaint heard in the various bodies as well as the enforcement process.