4 injuries on April 2, 1993. It explains that, therefore, according to the national legislation in force at the time of the events, which states that lawsuits alleging extracontractual civil responsibility on the part of the State must be filed within two years, the lower-court judge and the judges of the successive higher courts had dismissed the suit because the statute of limitations had expired, since Mr. Hernández had contracted the illness on August 16, 1990. 23. Concerning the petitioner’s claim that the alleged victim was in confinement and could not initiate any legal action, the State asserts that, even taking this into account, it should be noted that upon his release on May 19, 1991, there was no impediment whatsoever to filing his complaint before the twoyear statute of limitationsthat is, August 16, 1992expire, and yet he did not file it until April 2, 1993. 24. The State adds that the rules governing the statute of limitations are a matter of public law, meaning that it is impossible to alter the deadlines established. The State argues that Mr. Hernández enjoyed the guarantees of due process and availed himself of all the courts. It asserts that the petitioner’s intent is for the Commission to act as a fourth body for the review of domestic rulings. Thus, the State requests the Commission to declare the petition inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence of the Commission ratione personae, ratione materiae, ratione temporis, and ratione loci 25. The petitioners have a legitimate right to file a petition with the Commission, as provided for in Article 44 of the American Convention. The petition names as the alleged victim an individual for whom the State has assumed the commitment to respect and guarantee the rights recognized by the American Convention. As for the State, the Commission takes note that Argentina has been a State Party to the Convention since September 5, 1984, the date on which it deposited its ratification instrument. The Commission is therefore competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 26. The Commission has competence ratione loci to consider the petition, since it alleges violations of rights protected by the American Convention committed within the territory of a State Party to it. The IACHR has competence ratione temporis, since the State’s obligation to respect and guarantee the rights protected in the American Convention existed on the date it is claimed that the violations of rights alleged in the petition occurred. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae, because the petition alleges violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. B. Other requirements for admissibility of the petition 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 27. Article 46.1 of the American Convention states that for a petition lodged with the InterAmerican Commission to be admissible, all remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted, in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. The object of this requirement is to enable the national authorities to learn about the alleged violation of a protected right and, if appropriate, have the opportunity to redress it before it is reviewed by an international tribunal. 28. In this case, the parties agree that the alleged victim lodged a series of complaints and requests to secure adequate conditions of detention and medical treatment for his illness. The petitioners state that Mr. Hernández exhausted domestic remedies with the extraordinary remedy filed with the National Supreme Court of Justice. The State, in turn, confirms that with that action, the domestic remedies with respect to Mr. Hernández’ efforts to obtain compensation for damages and injuries resulting from the disease he contracted had been exhausted. The Commission finds that he has complied with the stipulations of Article 46.1 of the Convention. 2. Statute of limitations for lodging the petition