Convention was already in force for the Venezuelan State on the date when the acts alleged in the petition occurred. 28. With regard to jurisdiction ratione materiae, the IACHR notes that the petitioner maintains that the State violated the following rights protected by the American Convention, to the detriment of Mercedes Chocrón Chocrón: the right to due process (Article 8); the right to participate in government (Article 23); the right to equal protection (Article 24); and the right to judicial protection (Article 25), all considered in conjunction with the general obligation stipulated in Article 1.1 and the duty established in Article 2. B. Admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 29. Article 46.1 of the American Convention establishes prior exhaustion of remedies under the domestic law of a State as a requirement for admissibility of a petition. The alleged victim submitted that available domestic remedies were exhausted by the final judgment issued by the Supreme Court of Justice on October 19, 2004. The State did not submit preliminary objections in relation to failure to exhaust domestic remedies. Consequently, the InterAmerican Commission is of the view that the requirement of exhaustion of domestic remedies has been met. 2. Timeliness of the petition 30. Article 46.1.b of the Convention establishes that all petitions must be lodged within a period of six months from the date on which the petitioners were notified of the final judgment that exhausted domestic remedies. The petitioners allege that domestic remedies were exhausted by the judicial decision of the Supreme Court of Justice dated October 19, 2004, and that notification of said judgment occurred on November 15, 2004. The petition was lodged on May 15, 2005. Therefore, the Commission concludes that the petition was lodged within the period established by Article 46.1.b of the Convention. 3. Duplication of proceedings and res judicata 31. The case files do not contain evidence that the petition is pending in another international proceeding or that it is identical to a petition already examined by this or another international organization. Consequently, the requirements established in Articles 46.1.c and 47.d of the Convention are considered to have been met. 4. Characterization of the alleged facts 32. Article 47.b of the Convention establishes that the Commission shall declare inadmissible any petition or communication submitted that “does not state facts that tend to establish a violation of the rights guaranteed by this Convention.” 33. The State submitted arguments to the effect that the petition should be found inadmissible since removal of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón from office as a temporary judge is a discretionary power of the entity that so decided and is not subject to review. In addition, the State indicated that the characteristics of the office of temporary judge do not include the benefits available to career judges, and so the alleged victim did not have equal guarantees. 34. The petitioner, on the other hand, contended that under the Venezuelan Constitution itself and the laws of the country, and by virtue of the protections of rights contained in the American Convention, no citizen may be deprived of the minimum guarantees of due process. The petitioner submitted that the dismissal of Mrs. Chocrón Chocrón was part of a policy of harassment of judges who issued decisions allegedly opposed to the interests of the country’s political administration in highly controversial cases. Secondly, the petitioner argued that to dismiss a provisional judge, whether regular, alternate, or temporary, it is necessary to provide justification or to invoke the restrictive causes contained in the judicial career law and 5