the obligation to respect and ensure the rights protected by the American Convention was in force for the State when the violations alleged in the petition took place. Finally, the Commission has competence ratione materiae because the petition alleges violations of human rights that are protected by the American Convention. 68. Lastly, pursuant to the standards of interpretation established in the American Convention on Human Rights,8 the terms of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and the criteria established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights regarding the trend to integrate the regional and universal systems of human rights9 in terms of the notion of corpus juris as regards children,10 the Commission has decided that it will interpret the scope and content of the rights of César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández alleged to have been violated, in light of the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.11 B. Other admissibility requirements 1. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 69. Article 46(1)(a) of the American Convention provides that in order for a petition lodged before the Commission under Article 44 of the Convention to be admissible, the remedies under domestic law must have been pursued and exhausted in accordance with generally recognized principles of international law. 12 The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the State in question has the opportunity to resolve controversies within its own legal framework. 70. In the instant case, the petitioners allege that they have duly exhausted the domestic remedies by filing motions for cassation and subsequent special appeals. They add that Saúl Cristián Roldán Cajal has only filed the motion for cassation, because he was not informed of the ruling on that motion until 10 months after it was issued, which prevented him from filing further appeals of his sentence within domestic jurisdiction. 71. Furthermore, the petitioners state that Claudio David Núñez, Lucas Matías Mendoza, and Ricardo David Videla Fernández exhausted domestic remedies by filing a recurso de queja, or special motion based on improper denial of the motion for cassation with the National Supreme Court. The petitioners also tell the Commission that César Alberto Mendoza, Claudio David Núñez, and Lucas Matías Mendoza filed appeals challenging the Constitutionality of their sentences. These appeals were also 8 Article 29, Restrictions Regarding Interpretation: No provision of this Convention shall be interpreted as: (...) b. restricting the enjoyment or exercise of any right or freedom recognized by virtue of the laws of any State Party or by virtue of another convention to which one of the said states is a party; (…) 9 I/A Court H.R., Advisory Opinion OC 1/82 of September 24, 1982 on “Other Treaties,” regarding the advisory function of the Court (Art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights) paragraph 41. 10 I/A Court H.R., The “Street Children” Case (Villagrán Morales et al.). Judgment of November 19, 1999. Series C No. 63, para. 194. I/A Court H.R., Case of the “Juvenile Reeducation Institute”. Judgment of September 2, 2004. Series C No. 112, para. 148, I/A Court H.R., Case of the Gómez Paquiyauri Brothers. Judgment of July 8, 2004. Series C No. 110, para. 166. I/A Court H.R., Juridical Condition and Human Rights of the Child, Advisory Opinion OC-17/02 of August 28, 2002, Series A, No. 17, paras. 24, 37, and 53. 11 This Convention was adopted on November 20, 1989 and entered into force on September 2, 1990. Argentina ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child on December 5, 1990. 12 See I/A Court H.R., Exceptions to Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies (Article 46(1), 46(2)(a), and 46(2)(b) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion OC-11/90 of August 10, 1990, Ser. A Nº 11, paragraph 17.