communications it specifically refers to proceedings Nos. 24079, for “maltreatment” (torture), and 61720, for “the possible crime of destroying a public instrument.” 29. Its reply of July 24, 1995, explains the course of the criminal investigation conducted into the alleged maltreatment of the petitioner by three police officers. 30. In its reply of December 7, 1995, it reports the dismissal of proceedings N 57.144 (for threats), brought before National First-Instance Criminal Investigating Court N 30, and of the provisional dismissal of proceedings N 25.156 (for threats), brought before National First-Instance Criminal Investigating Court N 23. Within these latter proceedings, the Argentine Federal Police was ordered to “identify and capture the perpetrator(s) of the crime.” 31. In its communication of October 1, 1996, it offers a detailed description of the course of the different judicial proceedings initiated by the petitioner. It refers to the judgment of January 31, 1996, in proceedings N 24079 (maltreatment), which ordered the final dismissal and acquittal of the alleged torturers. It explains the steps taken in connection with the letter the petitioner sent to the President of the Republic on June 16, 1989. It notes that, “in proceedings N 26.696/95, on June 3, 1996, it was decided to file the case because of the nonexistence of a crime.” b. Regarding the law 32. In its reply of December 15, 1994, it maintains that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedies available under domestic law as required by Article 46(1)(a) of the Convention and that, consequently, the petition is inadmissible. The State has not addressed the other legal issues raised in the case. IV. ANALYSIS A. Competence of the Commission a. Competence ratione materiae 33. The petitioner’s claims involve alleged violations of Articles 5, 7, 8, and 25 of the Convention, to which Argentina is a party. Consequently, the case comes under the Commission’s competence ratione materiae. b. Competence ratione personae 34. The victim is an individual and he appears before the Commission as the petitioner. Consequently, the Commission holds that it has active competence ratione personae in this case. 35. The petitioner’s claims describe alleged violations of the Convention for which Argentina would be responsible. Consequently, the Commission has passive competence ratione personae to hear this case. c. Competence ratione temporis 36. The petition describes events that allegedly violated the Convention and that exclusively took place after the Convention had come into force for Argentina (September 5, 1984). Consequently, the Commission has competence ratione temporis to hear the case. 5