6 unconstitutional, the alleged victim should have filed a constitutional motion (acción de inconstitucionalidad), which was provided for in the Constitution in force at the time of the facts11, and in the Constitution of 2008. 23. It considers that the claim does not meet the requirements established in the American Convention and the Commission’s Rules of Procedure; accordingly, it asks that the petition be found inadmissible. IV. ANALYSIS OF COMPETENCE AND ADMISSIBILITY A. Competence 24. The petitioners are authorized, in principle, by Article 44 of the American Convention to submit petitions to the Commission. The petition indicates as the alleged victim an individual person, in respect of whom the Ecuadoran State has undertaken to respect and ensure the rights enshrined in the American Convention. As regards the State, the Commission notes that Ecuador has been a state party to the American Convention since December 28, 1977, the date on which it deposited its instrument of ratification. Therefore, the Commission is competent ratione personae to examine the petition. 25. In addition, the Commission is competent ratione loci to hear the petition, insofar as it alleges violations of rights protected in the American Convention said to have taken place in the territory of Ecuador, a state party to that treaty. The Commission is competent ratione temporis insofar as the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected in the American Convention was already in force for the State as of the date on which the facts alleged in the petition are said to have occurred. Finally, the Commission is competent ratione materiae, because the petition alleges possible violations of human rights protected by the American Convention. 26. With respect to the allegations of violations of the American Declaration, as per Articles 23 and 49 of its Rules of Procedure, in principle the Commission is competent ratione materiae to examine violations of the rights enshrined by that Declaration.12 Nonetheless, the IACHR has previously established13 that once the American Convention enters into force in relation to a State, it is that instrument – and not the Declaration – that becomes the specific source of the law that the Inter-American Commission will apply, so long as the petition alleges violations of rights that are substantially identical enshrined in both instruments.14 B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies The State makes reference to Article 277 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ecuador of 1998: “Actions alleging unconstitutionality may be filed by: 1. The President of the Republic, in those cases provided for in Article 276(1). 2. The National Congress, after a resolution by the majority of its members, in those cases provided for in Article 276(1) and (2). 3. The Supreme Court of Justice, after a resolution by the Court sitting in plenary, in those cases described in Article 276(1) and (2). 4. The provincial councils or municipal councils, in those cases indicated in Article 276(2). 5. One thousand citizens in the enjoyment of their political rights, or any person after a favorable report by the Human Rights Ombudsman on its admissibility, in the cases of Article 276(1) and (2)….” Official note 05191 from the Office of the Solicitor General of the State of December 4, 2008, forwarded by Note No. 4-2-144/03 of August 25, 2003. 12 I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, para. 41. 13 IACHR, Report No. 03/01, Case 11,670, Amilcar Menéndez, Juan Manuel Caride, et al., (Argentina), January 19, 2001, para. 41. 14 I/A Court H.R., Interpretation of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man Within the Framework of Article 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-10/89, July 14, 1989, Series A No. 10, para. 46. 11